Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

EPA then combined the energy, maintenance and labor components of the O&M upgrade
with the chemical portion of the O&M upgrade to develop two sets of O&M upgrade equations for
the primary chemical precipitation portion of Metals Option 4.

The itemized O&M upgrade cost estimates for the facilities that currently have primary
chemical precipitation in-place are presented in Table 2-26, while the O&M upgrade cost estimates
for the facilities that currently have secondary chemical precipitation in-place are presented in Table
2-27. The resulting cost curves are presented as Figures 2-20 and 2-21. The O&M upgrade cost
equations for the facilities that have primary and secondary chemical precipitation treatment in-place
are presented below as Equations 2-20 and 2-21, respectively.

In(¥2) = 11.4547 + 1.04337In(X) + 0.04575(In(X))” (2-20)

In(¥2) = 10.9647 + 0.98525In(X) + 0.04426(n(X))” (2-21)
where:

X= Flow Rate (MGD)

Y2 = O&M Cost (1989 $/YR)

2.1.5 Secondary (Sulfide) Precipitation for Metals Option 4

The Metals Option 4 secondary sulfide precipitation system follows the primary metals
precipitation/clarification step. This equipment consists of a mixed reaction tank with pumps and
a treatment chemical feed system, sized for the full daily batch volume. For direct dischargers, the
overflow from secondary sulfide precipitation would carry on to a clarifier and then multi-media
filtration. For indirect discharges, the overflow would go immediately to the filtration unit, without
clarification. Cost estimates for the clarifier are discussed in Section 2.2.2 of this document. Cost

estimates for multi-media filtration are presented in Section 2.5.

2-43



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

Table 2-59. O&M Cost Estimates for DAF Systems, Group 5 Facilities - Flow > 20 gpm

cn) Mainten- Taxes & Energy Labor Chemical Cos oan Cost
ance Alum NaOH Polymer Perlite «(1989 $/YR)
0.036 «= «4,771,386 = 2,920 15,600 5,652 17,073 64,061 8,338 120,801
0.072 «8155. 4,077 2,920 19,500 11,304 «34,145 128,122 16,675”: 224,898
0.144 «17,788 8,894. 3,569 += 23,400 = 22,607 68,291 256,243 33,350 434,142

1.44 49,890 24,945 8,760 31,200 226,070 682,906 2,562,431 333,520 3,919,722

Table 2-60. O&M Cost Estimates for Modified DAF Systems, Group 5 Facilities - Flow > 20 gpm

(yep) Mainten- Taxes 8 Energy Labor Cems cos ; ob cos
ance Alum NaOH Polymer Perlite (1989 S/YR)
0.036 3,064 1,532 2,920 15,600 5,652 17,073 64,061 8,338 118,240
0.072 5,238 2,619 2,920 19,500 11,304 34,145 128,122 16,675 220,523
0.144 11,424 5,712 3,569 23,400 22,607 68,291 256,243 33,350 424,596

1.44 32,043 16,021 8,760 31,200 226,070 682,906 2,562,431 333,520 3,892,951

Table 2-61. O&M Cost Estimates for DAF Systems, Group 5 Facilities - Flow < 20 gpm

Tr & ‘Chemical Cost Total
usb) Mainten- TSS Energy Labor O&M Cost
° Alum NaOH Polymer Perlite (1989 $/YR)
0.0072 «4,771 =—-2,386 2,920 3,120 226 683 2,562 334 17,002
0.0144 «4,771 «2,386 2,920 6,240 904 2,732 10,250 1,334 31,537
0.0216 4,771 2,386 ~—-2,920 9,360 2,035 6,146 23,062 3,002 53,682
0.0288 «= 4,771 «2,386 = 2,920 12,480 3,617 10,926 40,999 5,336 83,435

2-107



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

Options 2 and 3 selective metals precipitation upgrades for facilities that currently utilize some form
of chemical precipitation. Figure 2-4 presents the resulting cost curve. The O&M upgrade cost
equation for the Metals Options 2 and 3 is:

In(¥2) = 14.2545 + 0.8066In(X) + 0.04214(in(X))? (2-4)
where:

X = Flow Rate (MGD) and

Y2= O&M Cost (1989 $/YR).

400,000,000

40,000,000

O&M Cost (1989 $/YR)
8
8

40,000 ye ph pep pe il pee riiinl bo
0.0001 0.001 0.01 O41 4 10
Flow (MGD)

Figure 2-4. O&M Upgrade Cost Curve for Selective Metals Precipitation (Raw to Current
Removals) - Metals Options 2 and 3



Section 4 Sludge Treatment and Disposal Costs _ Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category

100,000 500 0 SSS

10,000,000

1,000,000

100,000

10,000

—EESE>E>»>~E~Y~E EEEpPEI~*7TM~IHLLL»L_»LLLLLLL» SSS

Filter Cake Disposal Costs (1989 $/Y R)

41,000 PT ee ee eo
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

Flow (MGD)

Figure 4-7. Filter Cake Disposal O&M Cost Curve for Plate and Frame Filtration Systems -
Metals Options 2 and 3

1,000,000

100,000 |

100 es pod
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.4 1 10
Flow (MGD)

&
=
é
2
oO
ro)
=
2
8
G
3
a
fa}
©
3
2
=)
2
S
oO
re
2
iim

Figure 4-8. Filter Cake Disposal O&M Upgrade Cost Curve for Plate and Frame Filtration
Systems - Metals Options 2 and 3

4-16



Section 4 Sludge Treatment and Disposal Costs _ Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category

As such, for facilities which currently have sludge filtration systems in place, for Metals
Option 4, EPA included an O&M cost upgrade of two percent of the total O&M costs (except for
taxes and insurance, which are a function of the capital cost).

Table 4-5 presents the itemized O&M upgrade cost estimates for the Metals Option 4 sludge
filtration systems. Figure 4-6 presents the resulting cost curve. The O&M upgrade cost equation
for the Metals Option 4 sludge filtration systems is:

In(¥2) = 12.014 + 1.17846In(X) + 0.050(In(X))? (4-6)
where:

X = Flow Rate (MGD) of Liquid Stream and

Y2 = O&M Cost (1989 $/YR).

Table 4-5. O&M Upgrade Cost Estimates for Plate and Frame Filtration - Metals Option 4
(Sludge Stream - Including Filter Cake Disposal Costs )

Wastewater Filter Total O&M
Influent Flow Cake Energy Maintenance Labor Cost
(MGD) Disposal (1989 $/YR)
0.000001 1 20 8 156 185
0.00001 2 20 8 156 186
0.0001 15 20 8 234 277
0.001 154 20 13 234 421
0.01 1,539 20 38 312 1,909
0.1 15,392 22 219 390 16,023
0.5 76,960 30 1,112 468 78,570
1.0 153,920 41 2,478 624 157,063

4-11





Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

Table 2-56. O&M Cost Estimates for Modified DAF Systems - Flow > 20 gpm

(usp) Mainten- T&S Energy Labor Cremer oa Cost
ance Alum NaOH Polymer Perlite (1989 $/YR)
0.036 © 3,064 = 1,532 2,920 15,600 4,090 12,449 46,650 8,338 94,643
0.072 «5,238 «= -2,619 2,920 19,500 8,181 24,898 93,300 16,675 173,331
0.144 = «'11,424 «5,712 3,569 = 23,400 «16,361 = 49,795 186,601 33,350 330,212

1.44 32,043 16,021 8,760 31,200 163,613 497,952 1,866,010 333,520 2,949,119

Table 2-57. O&M Cost Estimates for DAF Systems - Flow < 20 gpm

Fk tT & Chemical Cost Total
(MeD) Mainten- "7S" Energy Labor O&M Cost
ance . Alum NaOH Polymer Perlite ~— (1989 $/YR)
0.0072 «4,771 «2,386 = 2,920 3,120 164 498 1,866 334 16,059
0.0144 «4,771 2,386 2,920 6240. 654 1,992 7,464 1,334 27,761
0.0216 §« 4,771 2,386——-2,920 9,360 1,473 4,482 16,794 3,002 45,188
0.0288 4,771 2,386 «2,920 -12,480 2,618 7,967 29,856 5,336 68,334

Table 2-58. O&M Cost Estimates for Modified DAF Systems - Flow < 20 gpm

Chemical Cost Total

Flow Taxes &

Mainten- Energy Labor O&M Cost
(MGD) Insur. .

ance Alum NaOH Polymer Perlite (1989 $/YR)

0.0072 3,064 1,532 2,920 3,120 164 498 1,866 334 13,498
0.0144 3,064 1,532 2,920 6,240 654 1,992 7,464 1,334 25,200
0.0216 3,064 1,532 2,920 9,360 1,473 4,482 16,794 3,002 42,627
0.0288 3,064 1,532 2,920 12,480 2,618 7,967 29,856 5,336 65,773

2-103



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

EPA costed facilities to include a plate and frame liquid filtration system following selective
metals precipitation in Metals Options 2 and 3. The components of the plate and frame liquid
filtration system include: filter plates, filter cloth, hydraulic pumps, control panel, connector pipes,
and a support platform. Since EPA costed all metals facilities for selective metals precipitation
systems for Metals Options 2 and 3 (except the one facility which already utilizes this technology),

EPA also costed all metals facilities for plate and frame liquid filtration systems. Consequently,

EPA did not develop any upgrade costs associated with the use of plate and frame liquid filtration,
for selective metals precipitation treatment systems.

EPA also costed facilities to include a clarifier following secondary precipitation for Metals
Option 2 and following both secondary and tertiary precipitation for Metals Option 3. For Metals
Option 4, EPA costed facilities to include a clarifier following primary chemical precipitation and
following secondary precipitation (for direct dischargers only). EPA designed and costed a single
clarification system for all options and locations in the treatment train. The components of this
clarification system include a clarification unit, flocculation unit, pumps, motor, foundation, and

accessories.

2.2.1 Plate and Frame Liquid Filtration Following Selective Metals Precipitation -
Metals Options 2 and 3

Capital and Land Costs

The plate and frame liquid filtration equipment following the selective metals precipitation
step for the model technology in Metals Option 2 and 3 consists of two plate and frame liquid
filtration systems. EPA assumed that each system would be used to process two batches per day for
a total of four batches. EPA costed the plate and frame liquid filtration systems in this manner to
allow facilities to segregate their wastes into smaller batches, thereby facilitating selective metals

recovery. EPA sized each of the units to process a batch consisting of 25 percent of the daily flow



Section 4 Sludge Treatment and Disposal Costs _ Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category

Table 4-6. CWT Metals Subcategory Filter Cake Disposal Costs
CWT QID Filtercake Quantity Total Cost Unit Cost

(Pounds per Year) (1989 $ per Year) (1989 S$/G Filter Cake)
Subtitle C Landfills

2,632,000 250,000 0.95
8,834,801 835,484 0.95
6,389,520 711,000 1.11
9,456,000 602,471 0.64
968,000 125,964 1.30
13,230,000 1,164,200 0.88
3,030,000 530,250 1.75
151,650 12,450 0.82
5,850,000 789,000 1.35
297,234 36,750 1.24
2,628,600 390,000 1.48
36,000,000 2,000,000 0.56
1.03

Subtitle D Landfills

15,393,486 276,160 0.18
072 440,000 24,200 0.55
9 30,410,880 361,000 0.19
132 ; 26,378,000 158,273 0.06
133 36,960,587 780,351 0.21
135 131,451,200 2,768,225 0.21
231 80,000,000 800,000 0.10
294 56,777,760 898,560 0.16
298 2,365,740 18,800 0.08
MEDIAN 0.16

Weighted Average of Subtitle C and D Landfills Median Values
Weighted Average ($1.03 @ 67% + $0.16 @ 33%) 0.74

Source: WTI Questionnaire Data Base
Note: Pounds = Gallons X 8.34 X Specific Gravity (SG filtercake = 1.2)

4-14



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category

Treatment Technology Costs
100,000
&
ad
S
g
3
2
= 10,000
rd
8
=
oy
°
4,000 poi ee) ee
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

Flow (MGD)

Figure 2-31. O&M Cost Curve for Clarification Systems - Metals Option 3

As shown in Table 1-3, sludge filtration follows clarification for the secondary precipitation
step of Metals Options 2 and 3 and the primary and secondary (direct dischargers only) of Metals
Option 4. The costing discussion and equations for sludge filtration and the associated filter cake
disposal are presented in Section 4.1 and 4.2, respectively.

For facilities which already have clarification systems or plate and frame liquid filtration
systems in-place for each option and location in the treatment train, EPA estimated upgrade costs.
EPA assumed that clarification systems and plate and frame liquid filtration systems are equivalent.
Therefore, if a facility has an in-place liquid filtration system which can serve the same purpose as
aclarifier, EPA costed this facility for an upgrade only and not a new system.

For the clarification step following secondary precipitation in Metals Options 2 and 3, in
order to quantify the O&M increase necessary for the O&M upgrade, EPA compared the difference

2-63



Section 1 Costs Development Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category

opto Treatment Technology Section
Selective Metals Precipitation 21.1
Plate and Frame Liquid Filtration 2.2.1
Secondary Chemical Precipitation 2.1.2
Clarification : 2.2.2
Metals 3 Tertiary Chemical Precipitation and pH Adjustment 2.1.3
Clarification 2.2.2
Plate and Frame Sludge Filtration 4l
Filter Cake Disposal 42
Primary Chemical Precipitation 2.1.4
Clarification 2.2.2
Metals 4 Secondary (Sulfide) Chemical Precipitation 2.1.5
Secondary Clarification (for Direct Dischargers Only) 2.2.2
Multi-Media Filtration 2.5
Plate and Frame Sludge Filtration * 4.1
Metals -
Cyanide Waste Cyanide Destruction at Special Operating Conditions 2.6 ..
Pretreatment
Oils 8 Dissolved Air Flotation 2.8
. Dissolved Air Flotation 2.8
Oils 8v : mee :
Air Stripping 24
Oils 9 Secondary Gravity Separation 2.7
Dissolved Air Flotation 2.8
Secondary Gravity Separation 2.7
. Dissolved Air Flotation 28
Oils 9v
Air Stripping 24
. Equalization 2.3
Organics 4 Sequencing Batch Reactor 3.1
Equalization 2.3
Organics 3 Sequencing Batch Reactor 3.1
Air Stripping 2.4

* Metals Option 4 sludge filtration includes filter cake disposal.

1-5



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category

Treatment Technology Costs

Tables 2-65 and 2-66 present the itemized O&M upgrade cost estimates for the DAF systems
for the group 5 facilities with flow up to 20 gpm and greater than 20 gpm, respectively. Figures 2-64

and 2-65 present the resulting cost curves. The O&M upgrade cost equations for the group 5 DAF

systems with flow rates up to 20 gpm and greater than 20 gpm are presented below as Equations 2-

66 and 2-67, respectively.

In (¥2) = 19.2932 + 3.50923In(X) + 0.23946(in(X))?

In (¥2) = 13.4098 + 0.99925In(X) + 0.01496(In(X))”
where:

% = Flow Rate (MGD) and

Y2 = O&M Cost (1989 $/YR).

Table 2-63. O&M Upgrade Cost Estimates for DAF Systems - Flow < 20 gpm

Chemical Cost

Flow Mainten- Taxes & Energy Labor
(MGD) Insur.

ance Alum NaOH Polymer Perlite

Total
O&M Cost
(1989 $/YR)

0.0072 0 41 125 467 84
0.0144 0 164 498 1,866 334
0.0216 1,121 4,199 751

0.0288 1,992 7,464 1,334

2,227

5,152

9,509

15,295



Section3 Biological Wastewater Treatment Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category

Technology Costs

In(¥1) = 15.707 + 0.512In(X) + 0.0022(In(X))?
where:

X = Flow Rate (MGD) and

Y1 = Capital Cost (1989 $).

Table 3-1. Total Capital Cost Estimates for Sequencing Batch Reactor Systems

G-D

Flow Total Engineer. Total
Rate System Install. Piping Constr. & Capital
(MGD) Cost Cost Conting. Cost
(1993 $)

Total
Capital
Cost
(1989 $)

0.001 100,000 35,000 54,000 189,000 40,500 229,500
0.01 360,000 126,000 194,400 680,400 145,800 826,200
0.05 635,000 222,250 342,900 1,200,150 = 257,175 1,457,325
0.10 970,000 339,500 523,800 1,833,300 392,850 2,226,150
0.50 2,350,000 822,500 —1,269,000 4,441,500 = 951,750 5,393,250

1.0 3,200,000 1,120,000 1,728,000 6,048,000 1,296,000 + 7,344,000

206,550
743,580
1,311,593
2,003,535
4,853,925
6,609,600

10,000,000

1,000,000

Capital Cost (1989 $)

100,000 pa eee eT bev tt

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Flow (MGD)

Figure 3-1. Total Capital Cost Curve for Sequencing Batch Reactor Systems

3-2



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

In(¥1) = 11.552 + 0.4091In(X) + 0.020(in(X))?
where:

X= Flow (MGD) and

Y1 = Capital Cost (1989 $).

Table 2-33. Total Capital Cost Estimates for Clarification Systems - Metals Options 2, 3, and 4
Instrum. — Engineer. Total Total

Vol/Day System Install. Piping & & Capital Capital
(MGD) Cost Controls Conting. Cost Cost
(1993 $) (1989 $)

0.000001 6,579 2,303 1,974 1,974 3,849 16,679 15,178
0.00001 6,579 2,303 1,974 1,974 3,849 16,679 15,178

0.0001 6,579 2,303 1,974 1,974 3,849 16,679 15,178
0.001 6,971 2,440 2,091 2,091 4,078 17,671 16,081
0.01 9,547 3,341 2,864 2,864 5,585 24,201 22,023
0.05 14,550 5,093 4,365 4,365 8,512 36,885 33,565
0.1 18,358 6,425 5,507 5,507 10,739 46,536 42,348
0.5 35,466 12,413 10,640 10,640 20,748 89,907 81,815
1.0 49,563 17,347 14,869 14,869 28,994 125,642 = 114,334



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs .

Land Requirement (Acres)

0.01 pop iil
0.001 0.01 04
Flow (MGD)

Figure 2-6. Land Requirement Curve for Secondary Precipitation - Metals Options 2 and 3

Chemical Usage and Labor Requirement Costs

EPA developed O&M cost estimates for the secondary precipitation step of Metals Options
2 and 3 for facilities with and without chemical precipitation currently in-place. EPA assumed the
labor cost to be two hours per batch, based on manufacturers’ recommendations. For facilities with
no chemical precipitation in-place, EPA calculated the amount of lime required to precipitate each

of the metals and semi-metals from the metals subcategory current performance concentrations

(achieved with the previously explained selective metals precipitation step) to the Metals Option 2
long-term average concentrations. EPA then added a ten percent excess dosage factor and based the

chemical addition costs on the required amount of lime only, which is based on the operation of the

model facility for this technology.



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

2.7 Secondary Gravity Separation 7.

Secondary gravity separation systems provide additional oil and grease removal for oily
wastewater. Oily wastewater, after primary gravity separation/emulsion breaking, is pumped into
aseries of skimming tanks where additional oil and grease removal is obtained before the wastewater
enters the dissolved air flotation unit. The secondary gravity separation equipment discussed here
consists of a series of three skimming tanks in series. The ancillary equipment for each tank consists
of a mix tank with pumps and skimming equipment.

In estimating capital and O&M cost associated with secondary gravity separation, EPA
assumed that facilities either currently have or do not have secondary gravity separation. Therefore,

EPA did not develop any secondary gravity separation upgrade costs.

Capital and Land Costs

EPA obtained the capital cost estimates for the secondary gravity separation system from
vendor quotes. The itemized capital cost estimates for the secondary gravity separation systems is
presented in Table 2-45, while the resulting cost curve is presented as Figure 2-46.

The total capital cost equation for Oils Option 9 secondary gravity separation is:

In(V1) = 14.3209 + 0.38774In(X) - 0.01793(In(X))* (2-48)
where:

X = Flow Rate (MGD) and

Y1 = Capital Cost (1989 $)

2-87



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

Table 2-13. Total Capital Cost Estimates for Rapid Mix Tanks - Metals Option 3

Flow, Eaquipmen ‘ Piping Instrument. Installation me Total Capital
Controls Contingency (1989 $)
0.00001 165 49 49 58 96 417
0.0001 592 178 178 207 347 1,502
0.001 2,073 622 622 726 1,213 5,256
0.01 7,224 2,167 2,167 2,528 4,226 18,312
0.1 25,281 7,584 7,584 8,848 14,789 64,086
0.5 60,468 18,203 18,203 21,237 35,433 153,544
1.0 88,468 26,541 26,541 30,964 51,754 224,268
5.0 212,338 63,701 63,701 74,318 124,217 538,275

Table 2-14. Total Capital Cost Estimates for pH Adjustment Tanks - Metals Option 3

Flow Equipment _ Instrument . Engineering Total
(MGD) Cost Piping & Installation & Capital Cost
Controls Contingency (1989 $)
0.00001 91 27 27 32 53 230
0.0001 326 98 98 114 191 827
0.001 1,141 342 342 399 667 2,891
0.005 2,726 818 818 954 1,595 6,901
0.01 3,974 1,192 1,192 1,391 2,325 10,074
0.05 9,329 2,799 2,799 3,265 5,458 23,640
0.1 13,907. 4,172 4,172 4,867 8,135 35,253
0.5 33,379 10,014 10,014 11,683 19,581 84,851
1.0 48,667 14,600 14,600 17,033 28,470 123,370
5.0 116,808 35,042 35,042 40,883 68,333 296,108

2-23



Section 5 Additional Costs Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category

Table 5-4. Unimproved Land Costs for Suburban Areas - Region: North Central
State City Land Costs ($/ft”)

0-10 10 - 100 >100
Acres Acres Acres

Missouri Kansas City - 0.20 0.20
St Louis 1.50 1.10 1.00
State Average Cost 1.50 0.65 0.60
Estimated State Cost/Acre($) 65,340 28,314 26,136
Akron 0.80 0.25 0.20
Cincinnati 0.75 0.50 0.55
Cleveland 0.40 0.30 0.17
Columbus 0.25 0.18 0.12
Dayton 0.25 0.20 0.15
State Average Cost 0.49 0.29 0.23
Estimated State Cost/Acre($) 21,344 12,458 9,932

Nebraska Omaha 0.70 0.60 0.40
State Average Cost 0.70 0.60 0.40
Estimated State Cost/Acre($) 30,492 26,136 17,424

North Dakota * * *

South Dakota * * *

Wisconsin Milwaukee
State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)

REGIONAL AVERAGE REGIONAL COST

ESTIMATED REGIONAL
COST/ACRE($)



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

Table 2-29 presents the land requirements for the Metals Option 4 secondary (sulfide)
precipitation treatment systems. The land area curve is presented as Figure 2-23. The land

requirement equation for Metals Option 4 secondary (sulfide) precipitation is:

In(¥3) = -1.15 + 0.449In(X) + 0.0270n(X))?

where:

X= Flow Rate (MGD) and
Y3 = Land Requirement (Acres).

Table 2-29. Land Requirement Estimates for Secondary (Sulfide) Precipitation -
Metals Option 4

Flow Area Required
(MGD) (Acres)

0.0040 0.056
0.0071 0.063
0.015 : 0.088
0.10 0.126
0.25 0.166
0.5 0.186
1.0 0.388



Section 4 Sludge Treatment and Disposal Costs _ Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category

100,000,000 E

10,000 00 0 EEE

1,000,000 |
100,000 —EeEE

10,000

O&M Cost (1989 $/Y R)

1,000 Peet ee oe Te TD Tet a TTY
0.00001 0.0004 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Flow (MGD)

Figure 4-5. Plate and Frame Filtration (Sludge Stream) O&M Cost Curve - Metals Option 4

For facilities‘ which already have a sludge filtration system in-place, EPA included sludge
stream filtration O&M upgrade costs. For Metals Option 4, EPA included these O&M upgrade costs
for processing the sludge generated from the primary precipitation and clarification steps*. These
facilities would need to improve pollutant removals from their primary precipitation current
performance concentrations to Metals Option 4 (Sample Point-03) concentrations. This sample point
represents the effluent from the liquid-solids separation unit following primary chemical
precipitation at the Metals Option 4 model facility. Therefore, EPA calculated the percent difference
between primary precipitation current performance concentrations and Metals Option 4 (Sample

Point 03) concentrations. EPA determined that there was an increase of two percent.

3 EPA did not include O&M upgrade costs for the sludge generated from the secondary precipitation and
clarification step (direct dischargers only).

4-10



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs .

Table 2-11. O&M Cost Estimates for Secondary Precipitation - Metals Options 2 and 3

(aD) . Energy Maintenance a Labor Chemical oan Cost

Insurance (1989 $/YR)
0.000001 1,000 22 11 13,116 0 14,149
0.00001 1,000 77 39 13,116 1 14,233
0.001 1,010 946 473 13,475 21 15,925
0.01 1,104 3,310 1,655 14,741 214 21,024
0.05 1,520 7,945 3,973 15,696 1,070 30,204
0.1 2,040 11,584 5,792 16,126 2,140 37,682

0.5 6,200 27,804 13,902 17,171 10,198 75,775
1.0 11,400 40,538 20,269 17,641 21,395 111,243
5.0 53,000 97,299 48,649 18,784 106,976 324,708

For facilities with chemical precipitation in-place, EPA calculated an O&M upgrade cost.
In calculating the O&M upgrade cost, EPA assumed that there would be no additional costs
associated with any of the components of the annual O&M cost, except for increased chemical costs.

Since EPA already applied credit for chemical costs for facilities with primary precipitation
in estimating the selective metals precipitation chemical costs, the chemical upgrade costs for
facilities with primary precipitation are identical to facilities with no chemical precipitation in-place.

Since EPA assumed that facilities with secondary precipitation would achieve the Metals
Option 2 long term average concentrations with their current system and chemical additions (after
installing the selective metals precipitation system), EPA assumed these facilities would not incur
any additional chemical costs. In tum, EPA also assumed that facilities with secondary precipitation

units in-place would incur no O&M upgrade costs.

2-19



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category

Treatment Technology Costs
4,000,000
iia
=
Aa
3
= 100,000
3
rs)
=
oS
re)
40,000 po pop it pop ail poi iit
0.001 0.01 0.4 1 10
Flow (MGD) .
Figure 2-24. O&M Cost Curve for Secondary (Sulfide) Precipitation Systems -
Metals Option 4

2.2 Plate and Frame Liquid Filtration and Clarification

Clarification systems provide continuous, low-cost separation and removal of suspended
solids from water. Waste treatment facilities use clarification to remove particulates, flocculated
impurities, and precipitants, often following chemical precipitation. Similarly, waste treatment
facilities also use plate and frame pressure systems to remove solids from waste streams. As
described in this section, these plate and frame filtration systems serve the same function as
clarification and are used to remove solids following chemical precipitation from liquid
wastestreams. The major difference between clarification systems and plate and frame liquid
filtration systems is that the sludge generated by clarification generally needs to be processed further
prior to landfilling, whereas, the sludge generated by plate and frame liquid filtration does not.

2-51



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category

Treatment Technology Costs

Table 2-45. Total Capital Cost Estimates for Secondary Gravity Separation

: Engineer. Total
Flow Rate Bauipment cont tion & Capital Cost
(MGD) Cost Conting. (1989 $)

0.0005 19,200 25,920 7,776 33,696
0.001 27,990 37,787 11,336 49,123
0.005 67,170 90,680 27,204 117,884

0.01 97,938 132,216 39,665 171,881

0.05 235,065 317,338 95,201 412,539
0.1 342,729 462,684 138,805 601,489
0.5 822,603 1,110,514 333,154 1,443,668
1.0 1,199,364 1,619,141 485,742 2,104,883
5.0 1,378,662 1,861,194 558,358 2,419,552

Capital Cost (1989 $)

pupil po ot

pops pot pi 4
041 1 10

0,001 oo 0.01
Flow (MGD)

Figure 2-46. Total Capital Cost Curve for Secondary Gravity Separation

2-88



Section 5 Additional Costs Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category

Table 5-4. Unimproved Land Costs for Suburban Areas - Region: South

State City Land Costs ($/ft?)
0-10 10- 100 >100
Acres Acres Acres
Tennessee Chattanooga 0.40 0.60 0.50
Knoxville 0.45 0.25 0.15
Memphis 1.00 0.75 0.55
Nashville 0.80 0.50 0.50
State Average Cost 0.66 0.43 0.35
Estimated State Cost/Acre($) 28,859 18,513 15,246
Texas Austin 0.75 0.60 0.50
Corpus Christi 1.25 0.50 0.20
Dallas 2.50 2.00 1.50
Fort Worth 1.00 0.75 0.50
Houston 2.50 2.00 1.00
San Antonio 0.85 0.65 0.65
State Average Cost 1.48 1.08 0.73
Estimated State Cost/Acre($) 64,251 47,190 31,581
Virginia Richmond 0.75 1.00 0.75
Roanoke . 1.25 1.00 0.75
State Average Cost 1.00 1.00 0.75
Estimated State Cost/Acre($) 43,560 43,560 32,670
District of Washington 4.50 3.50 -
Columbia State Average Cost 4.50 3.50 -
Estimated State Cost/Acre($) 196,020 152,460 -
West Virginia * * *
REGIONAL AVERAGE REGIONAL COST 1.39 1.14 0.73
ESTIMATED REGIONAL, 60,521 49,658 31,857
COST/ACRE($)

5-13



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

O & MCost (1989 S/YR)

10,000 po
0,001 0.010

Flow (MGD)

Figure 2-61. O&M Cost Curve for Group 5 Modified DAF Systems -
Flow < 20 gpm

For facilities with DAF treatment in-place, EPA estimated O&M upgrade costs. These

facilities would need to improve pollutant removals from their current DAF current performance

concentrations to the Oils Option 8 and Option 9 long-term averages. As detailed in Chapter 12 of
the Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category, EPA does not have current
performance concentration data for the majority of the oils facilities with DAF treatment in-place.
EPA does, however, have seven data sets which represent effluent concentrations from emulsion
breaking/gravity separation. While the pollutant concentrations in wastewater exiting emulsion
breaking/gravity separation treatment are higher (in some cases, considerably higher) than the
pollutant concentrations in wastewater exiting DAF treatment, EPA has, nevertheless, used the
emulsion breaking/gravity separation data sets to estimate DAF upgrade costs. For each of the
seven emulsion breaking/gravity separation data sets, EPA calculated the percent difference between



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

Table 2-17. O&M Cost Estimates for Rapid Mix Tanks - Metals Option 3

(ten) Energy = Maintenance Labor Chemical oa Cost
Insurance (1989 $/YR)
0.00001 63 17 8 4,372 0 4,460
0.0001 63 60 30 4,372 1 4,826
0.001 63 210 105 4,492 1 4,871
0.01 69 732 366 4,914 9 6,090
0.1 128 2,563 1,282 5,375 94 9,442
0:5 388 6,142 3,071 5,724 A472 15,797
1.0 113 8,971 4,485 5,880 944 20,993
5.0 3,313 21,531 10,766 6,261 4,718 46,589
Table 2-18. O&M Cost Estimates for pH Adjustment Tanks - Metals Option 3
Flow . Taxes Chemical Total
(MGD) Energy Maintenance & Labor Cost O&M Cost
Insurance (1989 $/YR)
0.00001 21 9 5 4,372 1 4,408
0.0001 21 33 17 4,372 1 4,444
0.001 21 116 58 4,492 2 4,684
0.01 23 403 201 4,914 18 5,559
0.1 43 1,410 705 5,375 175 7,708
0.5 130 3,394 + 1,697 5,724 870 11,815
1.0 238 4,935 3,467 5,880 1,735 16,255
5.0 1,104 11,844 5,922 6,261 8,660 33,791

2-29



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

1,000,000

&
=
aS
2g
3
2
= 100,000
B
3
°
=
%
°
40,000 Pr ee) ee ey ee eT eT
0.0001 0.001 0.01 O41 1 10

Flow (MGD)
Figure 2-36. O&M Cost Curve for Equalization Systems

2.4 Air Stripping

Air stripping is an effective wastewater treatment method for removing dissolved gases and
volatile compounds from wastewater streams. The technology passes high volumes of air through
an agitated gas-water mixture. This promotes volatilization of compounds, and, preferably capture
in air pollution control systems.

The air stripping system costed by EPA includes transfer pumps, control panels, blowers, and
ancillary equipment. EPA also included catalytic oxidizers as part of the system for air pollution
control purposes.

If a CWT facility currently has an air stripping system in-place, EPA did not assign the
facility any costs associated with air stripping. EPA assumed that the air stripping systems currently
in-place at CWT facilities would perform as well as (or better than) the system costed by EPA.

2-71



LIST OF FIGURES (cont.)

O&M Cost Curve for Secondary Gravity Separation
Total Capital Cost Curve for DAF Systems
Total Capital Cost Curve for Modified DAF Systems
Total Capital Cost Curve for Holding Tanks
Land Requirement Curve for DAF and Modified DAF Systems
Land Requirement Curve for Holding Tanks
O&M Cost Curve for DAF Systems - Flow > 20 gpm
O&M Cost Curve for Modified DAF Systems - Flow > 20 gpm
O&M Cost Curve for DAF Systems - Flow < 20 gpm
O&M Cost Curve for Modified DAF Systems - Flow < 20 gpm
O&M Cost Curve for Group 5 DAF Systems - Flow > 20 gpm
O&M Cost Curve for Group 5 Modified DAF Systems - Flow > 20 gpm . .
O&M Cost Curve for Group 5 DAF Systems - Flow < 20 gpm
O&M Cost Curve for Group 5 Modified DAF Systems - Flow < 20 gpm
O&M Upgrade Cost Curve for DAF Systems - Flow < 20 gpm ....
O&M Upgrade Cost Curve for DAF Systems - Flow > 20 gpm ..
O&M Upgrade Cost Curve for Group 5 DAF Systems - Flow < 20 gpm
O&M Upgrade Cost Curve for Group 5 DAF Systems - Flow > 20 gpm
Total Capital Cost Curve for Sequencing Batch reactor Systems
Land Requirement Curve for Sequencing Batch Reactor Systems ..
O&M Cost Curve for Sequencing Batch Reactor Systems ..
Plate and Frame Filtration (Sludge Stream) Capital Cost-Curve -
All Metals Options
Plate and Frame Filtration (Sludge Stream) Land Requirement Curve -
All Metals Options
Plate and Frame Filtration (Sludge Stream) O&M Cost Curve -
Metals Options 2 and 3
Plate and Frame Filtration (Sludge Stream) O&M Upgrade Cost Curve -
Metals Options 2 and 3
Plate and Frame Filtration (Sludge Stream) O&M Cost Curve -
Metals Option 4



Section 1

Section 2

Section 3

Section 4

Section 5

Section 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Costs Development

1.1 Technology Costs .
1.2 Option Costs
1.2.1 Land Requirements and Costs ........... 20... c eee e eee e eee eee eee ee
1.2.2 Operation and Maintenance Costs
Physical/Chemical Wastewater Treatment Technology Costs .
2.1 Chemical Precipitation

2.1.1 Selective Metals Precipitation - Metals Option 2 and Metals Option3 ....... 2-1
2.1.2 Secondary Precipitation - Metals Option 2 and Metals Option3 ........... 2-12
2.1.3 Tertiary Precipitation and pH Adjustment - Metals Option3 .............. 2-21
2.1.4 Primary Chemical Precipitation - Metals Option 4 ....................-4 2-31
2.1.5 Secondary (Sulfide) Precipitation- Metals Option4 ..................08 2-43

2.2 Plate and Frame Liquid Filtration and Clarification ..
2.2.1 Plate and Frame Liquid Filtration Following Selective Metals
Precipitation - Metals Options 2 and3 ...............0..000 2000 2-52
2.2.2 Clarification - Metals Options 2, 3 and 4 2-57
2.3 Equalization 2-67
2.4 Air Stripping ....... 0... c eect teeters 2-71
2.5 Multi-Media Filtration . 2-76
2.6 Cyanide Destruction . 2-81
2.7 Secondary Gravity Separation 2-87
2.8 Dissolved Air Flotation ......... 2.0... e cece cece cece eee eee teen eee 2-92
Biological Wastewater Treatment Technology Costs
3.1 Sequencing Batch Reactors
Sludge Treatment and Disposal Costs .... 200... 6c cece cece cece eee nee
4.1 Plate and Frame Pressure Filtration - Sludge Stream ...
4.2 Filter Cake Disposal 4-12
Additional Costs .......... 6.6.6 cece eee cece ee eee e teen e eee ee
5.1. Retrofit Costs
5.2 Monitoring Costs . ..
5.3. RCRA Permit Modification Costs
5.4 Land Costs ... 2... 0. e cece cent e cent tenn e nen eee
References 1.22.2... cece eee cece eee cence eee wee c eect c eben eee eee cease



+

Section 4 Sludge Treatment and Disposal Costs _ Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category

1,000,000

100,000

O&M Cost (1989 $/YR)

400 Looe eet

0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Flow (MGD)

Figure 4-6. Plate and Frame Filtration (Sludge Stream) O&M Upgrade Cost Curve -
Metals Option 4

4.2 Filter Cake Disposal

The liquid stream and sludge stream pressure filtration systems presented in Sections 2.2 and
4.1, respectively, generate a filter cake residual. There is an annual O&M cost that is associated with
the disposal of this residual. This cost must be added to the pressure filtration equipment O&M
costs to arrive at the total O&M costs for pressure filtration operation’.

To determine the cost of transporting and disposing filter cake to an off-site facility, EPA
performed an analysis on a subset of questionnaire respondents in the WTI Questionnaire response
database. This subset consists of metals subcategory facilities that are direct and/or indirect

dischargers and that provided information on contract haul and disposal cost to hazardous (Subtitle

4 Note that these costs have already been included in the O&M equation for plate and frame sludge filtration
for Metals Option 4.

4-12



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

Land Requirement (Acres)
o
8

Flow (GD)

Figure. Land Requirement Curve for Rapid Mix Tanks - Metals Option 3

Land Requirement (Acres)

0.01
0.01 of
Flow (MGD)

Figure 2-12. Land Requirement Curve for pH Adjustment Tanks - Metals Option 3

2-26



Section 5 Additional Costs

Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category

Table 5-4. Unimproved Land Costs for Suburban Areas - Region: Northeast

State City Land Costs ($/ft?)

0-10 10 - 100 >100

Acres Acres Acres

Connecticut Hartford 1.37 0.92 0.58
New Haven 1.85 1.60 1.15

State Average Cost 1.61 1.26 0.87

Estimated State Cost/Acre($) 70,132 54,886 37,679
Maine Portland 0.60 0.40 0.35
State Average Cost 0.60 0.40 0.35

Estimated State Cost/Acre($) 26,136 17,424 15,246
Massachusetts Boston - 2.00 1.50
Springfield 1.45 1.10 0.75
State Average Cost 1.45 1.55 1.13

Estimated State Cost/Acre($) 63,162 67,518 49,005

New Hampshire Nashua 1.50 1.15 1.00
State Average Cost 1.50 1.15 1.00

Estimated State Cost/Acre($) 65,340 50,094 43,560

New Jersey Central 2.00 1.50 1.00
; Northern 4.00 3.50 2.50

Southern 1.15 1.10 -

State Average Cost 2.38 2.03 1.75

Estimated State Cost/Acre($) 103,673 88,426 76,230

5-7



Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

Even though the metal-rich sludge generated from selective metals precipitation and plate
and frame liquid filtration may be recycled and re-used, EPA additionally included costs associated
with disposal of these sludges in a landfill. The discussion for filter cake disposal is presented
separately in Section 4.2. These disposal costs are additional O&M costs which must be added to
the O&M costs calculated above to obtain the total O&M costs associated with plate and frame

liquid filtration system for Metals Options 2 and 3.

2.2.2 Clarification - Metals Options 2,3, and 4

Capital and Land Costs

EPA obtained the capital cost estimate for clarification systems from vendors. EPA designed
the clarification system assuming an influent total suspended solids (TSS) concentration of 40,000
mg/L (four percent solids) and an effluent TSS concentration of 200,000 mg/L (20 percent solids).
In addition, EPA assumed a design overflow rate of 600 gpd/f?. EPA estimated the influent and
effluent TSS concentrations and overflow rate based on the WTI Questionnaire response for
Questionnaire ID 105. As detailed earlier, the same capital cost equation is used for all of the
clarification systems for all of the Metals Options regardless of its location in the treatment train.
EPA did not develop capital cost upgrades for facilities which already have clarification systems in-
place. Therefore, facilities which currently have clarifiers have no land or capital costs.

EPA obtained the capital cost estimates for the clarification systems from vendors. The
itemized capital cost estimates for the clarification systems are presented in Table 2-33. The
resulting cost curve is presented as Figure 2-28. The total capital cost equation for the Metals

Options 2, 3, and 4 clarification systems is:

2-57



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

For facilities which already have clarifiers or plate and frame liquid filtration systems in-
place which could serve as the clarifier following the primary chemical precipitation of Metals
Option 4, EPA compared the difference between primary precipitation current loadings and the long-
term averages for Metals Option 4, Sample Point 03 (Sample Point 03 follows primary precipitation
and clarification at the Metals Option 4 model facility). EPA determined that facilities would need
to increase their removals by 2%. Therefore, for in-place clarification systems (or plate and frame
liquid filtration systems) which could serve as the clarifier following primary chemical precipitation
for Metals Option 4, EPA included an O&M cost upgrade of two percent of the O&M costs for a

brand new system (except for taxes, insurance, and maintenance which are a function of the capital

cost).

EPA did not calculate an O&M upgrade equation for the clarification step following
secondary chemical precipitation (direct dischargers only) of Metals Option 4. EPA costed all direct
discharging facilities for a new clarification system following secondary chemical precipitation for
Metals Option 4 since none of the direct discharging metals facilities had treatment in-place for this
step.

The O&M upgrade cost equations for the Metals Option 4 clarification and liquid filtration

systems are presented below as Equations 2-34 and 2-35, respectively.

In(¥2) = 6.8135 + 0.3315In(X) + 0.0242(InCX))”
In(¥2) = 12.0242 + 1.17676In(X) + 0.05005(in(X))”

where:
X = Flow Rate (MGD),
Y2= O&M Cost (1989 $/YR).





Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

2.8 Dissolved Air Flotation

Flotation is the process of inducing suspended particles to rise to the surface of a tank where
they can be collected and removed. Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) is one of several flotation
techniques employed in the treatment of oily wastewater. DAF is commonly used to extract free and

dispersed oil and grease from oily wastewater.

Capital and Land Costs

EPA developed capital cost estimates for dissolved air flotation systems for the oils
subcategory Options 8 and 9. EPA based the capital cost estimates for the DAF units on vendor’s
quotations. EPA assigned facilities with DAF units currently in-place no capital costs. For facilities
with no DAF treatment in-place, the DAF system consists of a feed unit, a chemical addition mix
tank, and a flotation tank. EPA also included a sludge filtration/dewatering unit. EPA developed

capital cost estimates for a series of flow rates ranging from 25 gpm (0.036 MGD) to 1000 gpm

(1.44 MGD). EPA was unable to obtain costs estimates for units with flows below 25 gallons per
minute since manufacturers do not sell systems smaller than those designed for flows below 25
gallons per minute.

The current DAF system capital cost estimates include a sludge filtration/dewatering unit.
For facilities which do not have a DAF unit in-place, but have other treatment systems that produce
sludge (i.e. chemical precipitation and/or biological treatment), EPA assumed that the existing
sludge filtration unit could accommodate the additional sludge produced by the DAF unit. For these
facilities, EPA did not include sludge filtration/dewatering costs in the capital cost estimates. EPA
refers to the capital cost equation for these facilities as “modified” DAF costs.

Tables 2-48 and 2-49 present the itemized capital cost estimates for the DAF and modified
DAF systems, while Figures 2-49 and 2-50 present the resulting cost curves. The capital cost
equations for the DAF and modified DAF treatment systems for Oils Options 8 and 9 are presented
below as Equations 2-51 and 2-52, respectively.

2-92



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category

Treatment Technology Costs

1,000,000,
£
=
&
2
Ey
&
= 100,000
ry
8
is}
=
oS
°

40,000 1 pop pit 1 pop 1 ro rae
0.01 o 1 40

Flow (MGD)
Figure 2-64. O&M Upgrade Cost Curve for Group 5 DAF Systems - Flow < 20 gpm

10,000,000
z
= 100,000
Ss
g
2
B
&
i)
=
<3 100,000
fe)
40,000 pe pe po
0.01 o.4 1 10

Flow (MGD)
Figure 2-65. O&M Upgrade Cost Curve for Group 5 DAF Systems - Flow > 20 gpm



5.3. RCRA Permit Modification Costs

Respondents to the WTI Questionnaire who indicated that their RCRA Part B permits were
modified were asked to report the following information pertaining to the cost of obtaining the
modification:

¢ Legal fees;

« Administrative costs;

« Public relations costs;

¢ Other costs; and

¢ Total costs.

Section 5 Additional Costs Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category

EPA also requested the reason for the permit modification. Table 5-3 lists the RCRA permit

modification costs reported for installation of new units, installation of new technology, and
modifications to existing equipment. As shown, the average cost for these permit modifications is

$31,400. EPA anticipates that many CWT facilities with RCRA Part B permits will be required to

modify their permits to include the upgrade of existing equipment and/or the installation of new

| treatment technologies to achieve the proposed CWT effluent limitations and standards. Therefore,
| for all RCRA B facilities, EPA additionally included a one-time cost of $31,400 to modify their

permit.

5-5





Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category

Treatment Technology Costs

In (V1) = 13.9518 + 0.29445In(X) - 0.12049(In(X))” (2-51)
In (V1) = 13.509 + 0.29445In(X) - 0.12049(in(X))? (2-52)
where:
X = Flow Rate (MGD)
Y1 = Total Capital Cost (1989 $)
Table 2-48. Total Capital Cost Estimates for DAF Systems
. Total
Sludge oe Total Total Engineer "
Non rote Feed Dewatering Shipping Equip. Construction & Capital
it Unit Unit Cost Cost Cost Contin; Cost
S989 $)
0.036 17,067 12,560 16,502 923 47,052 91,751 27,525 119,276
0.072 34,135 16,505 28,206 1,577 80,423 156,826 47,048 203,874

0.144 73,731 36,727 61,525 3,440 175,423 342,074 102,622 444,696

1.44 209,928 99,877 172,561 9,647 492,013 959,427 287,828 1,247,255

Table 2-49. Total Capital Cost Estimates for Modified DAF Systems

Flow bated reed Shipping Equipment Consiretion me or Capital Cost
(MGD) Cost Cost Conting. (1989 $)
0.036 17,067 12,560 593 30,220 58,928 17,678 76,606
0.072 34,135 16,505 1,013 51,653 100,723 30,217 130,940
0.144 73,731 36,727 2,209 112,667 219,701 65,910 285,611
1.44 209,928 99,877 6,196 316,001 616,202 184,861 801,063

2-93



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category

Treatment Technology Costs

Table 2-8. Total Capital Cost Estimates for Secondary Precipitation - Metals Options 2 and 3

Flow
(MGD)

Equipment

Cost

Piping

Instrumentation
&
* Controls

Installation

Engineering
&

Contingency

Total
Capital Cost
(1989 8)

0.000001
0.00001
0.001
0.01

0.05
0.1
0.5

1.0
5.0

218

762
9,329
32,646
78,355
114,243
274,201
399,788
959,554

65

229
2,799
9,794
23,507
34,273
82,260
119,936
287,866

65

229
2,799
9,794
23,507
34,273
82,260
119,936
287,866

16

267
3,265
11,426
27,424
39,985
95,970
139,926
335,844

127

446
5,457
19,098
45,838
66,832
160,408
233,876
561,339

552
1,931
23,649
82,758
198,631
289,606
695,100
1,013,462
2,432,469

Capital Cost (1989 $)

10,000

Litt

Lop ppitit 1

0.0001

0.001

0.01

04

Flow (MGD)

1

10

Figure 2-5. Total Capital Cost Curve for Secondary Precipitation - Metals Options 2 and 3
2-14



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category

Treatment Technology Costs
1,000,000
eS
8
z
B 100,000
iS}
3 ———
8
36
40,000 Pree are ee TT eT eT) TT
0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 O41 4 10
Flow (MGD)
Figure 2-37. Total Capital Cost Curve for Air Stripping Systems

To develop land requirements for the air stripping and catalytic oxidizer systems, EPA used
vendor data. The dimensions of the air strippers, in terms of length and width, are very small
compared to the catalytic oxidizers. Figure 2-38 presents the land requirement curve for air stripping

systems. The land requirement equation for the air stripping systems is:

In(V3) = -2.207 + 0.536In(X) + 0.042(In(X))” (2-40)
where:
X = Flow Rate (MGD) and

3 = Land Requirement (Acres).

2-73



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

Capital and Land Costs

The CAPDET program calculates capital costs which are “total project costs.” These “total
project costs” include all of the items previously listed in Table 1-1 as well as miscellaneous
nonconstruction costs, 201 planning costs, technical costs, land costs, interest during construction,
and laboratory costs. Therefore, to obtain capital costs for the equalization systems for this industry,
EPA calculated capital costs based on total project costs minus: miscellaneous nonconstruction costs,
201 planning costs, technical costs, land costs, interest during construction, and laboratory costs.

Table 2-37 presents the total capital and land requirement estimates for the equalization
systems. Figure 2-34 presents the cost curve for the total capital cost of the equalization systems,
while Figure 2-35 presents the cost curve for the land requirement for the equalization systems. The
cost equation for the total capital cost for the equalization systems is presented below as Equation
2-36. The land requirement cost equation for the equalization systems is presented below as
Equation 2-37.

In(V1) = 12.057 + 0.433In(X) + 0.043(in(X))?
In(V3) = -0.912 + 1.120In(X) + 0.0110n(X))?

where:
X= Flow Rate (MGD),
Y1 = Capital Cost (1989 $), and
Y3 = Land Requirements (Acres).



Section 1 Costs Development Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category

costs either up or down to 1989 dollars using the Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction
Cost Index.

EPA based the capital costs for the technologies primarily on vendors' quotations. The
standard factors used to estimate the capital costs are listed in Table 1-1. Equipment costs typically
include the cost of the treatment unit and some ancillary equipment associated with that technology.
Other investment costs in addition to the equipment cost include piping, instrumentation and

controls, pumps, installation, engineering, delivery, and contingency.

Table 1-1. Standard Capital Cost Algorithm
Factor Capital Cost
Equipment Cost Technology-Specific Cost
Installation 25 to 55 percent of Equipment Cost
Piping 31 to 66 percent of Equipment Cost
Instrumentation and Controls 6 to 30 percent of Equipment Cost
Equipment + Installation + Piping
+ Instrumentation and Controls
Engineering 15 percent of Total Construction Cost
Contingency 15 percent of Total Construction Cost
Total Indirect Cost Engineering + Contingency
Total Construction Cost + Total
Indirect Cost

Total Construction Cost

Total Capital Cost

EPA estimated certain design parameters for costing purposes. One such parameter is the
flow rate used to size many of the treatment technologies. EPA used the total daily flow in all cases,
unless specifically stated. The total daily flow represents the annual flow divided by 260, the
standard number of operating days for a CWT per year.

EPA derived the annual O&M costs for the various systems from vendors' information or

from engineering literature, unless otherwise stated. The annual O&M costs represent the costs of

maintenance, taxes and insurance, labor, energy, treatment chemicals (if needed), and residuals



GOsese'Le —Soz'ese'Le | Ise'sec'e ozs'seu'z | o96uE BseLe

0 0 0 0 cal 0000 “ey WaINODALZ}
teoross'z | ese'eec't | coo'ssz | 9z8'eor wl LOT HLE i LOTBL6 ONrZ|
Lue 007 a 4 0 se 1600 9600 WARLLA
088'p0z 199'LbT 8807 99L'FL avr 967 bese uses WnIGVNVA
Isr'ses's | oer'oze'y | sites | eto'zer vee S9TS6L 009's62 WAINVLL|
196 789 56 89 1 sel eo Lee NU
8s ley as wy 0 6s0 iyo 19¥0 WOITIVEL
const perl ovs'l vu nt 160 Sse S09 WALLNOULS|
vert 900'1 wl £01 I 0 1s8°0 oor UaATIS}
george | ssi'soa'z | Gos'i9e | Gi9'097 909° ou's v0 18 £69'v87 NooIis|
0 0 0 0 0 0% 0000 aero WNNINATAS|
eerste PREETI BPS ILI BESET 9E7'L 68:1 woe GPO ILE GEL PLE “TAXOIN|
ose'ssz oov'Pst s6s'st Lest 9st $81 iz ost eve'sh f0rsr WnNaGaA Ton
sz 981 9 61 0 0 eo oro 1870 £0 Aunowan}
Tsz'out sete 820LI weed out eth 69% 167 test ust9z ASNVONVIY
ves'ser't | vas'veo't | zostept | sov'cor gent seo'l ees ons oovort ooEr vit WAHL]
c99'99¢ zse'p9z 99°98 gev'oe i9e 99% 10 00 aevolz prOLZ aya]
lvo'ziez | peo'pse't | poziee | zo¥'ser zee Sse 661 sve LUE 6s oleses Nou
650'06 L06'r9 900'6 1669 06 sos 1L0 £80 S¥OLb levis woranal
levzie'e | ozs‘ovs'e | cectcr | csorese zie» lst ri ral wceeet oov9eet wwaddoo|
Zev LIT $99'P8 eye gon's au SB 881 ¥0% Los'se 60s'sz L1yva09|
ciseir's | szvsor'y | coctig | eps'orr our’ sory 1% 1% SOrvLIt spoosit WAINOYHS
18°04 LOIS 180% 80r's a Is 990 £0 sche oeoey wninavo}
arsine | socosr'z | ssi'ppe | cco'sez tore 08r'z cor rm fOr LEI geeest Nowog|
lev's LL0'9 £8 309 a 9 Ly@ 19% oor 0661 OINASUY|
sicoee sevore wo'ey EvO'le ith ore wl v9" L6r9tt vical ANOWILNY|
ese'cos'e | vor'oss'z | seetese | gt0'6sz v6s'e o6s't ue vy 9808SE ogs's 997696 WONINNTY|

QiasaD | Giasat) | QtasaT) | GiassaT | Grasse | QlAsaD) | QiAssaD | QiA‘saT) } Qua/sa) | Quaysa7) fu)
‘utr isn, auyy onsteg our snsnu uy osm UT onsneg, (8x) (as) (ayatu)

pAoT pao 807 wweinjjog
€0ds- Ay tous any

COW OT = Mold OW [0= Mold COW 100°0* HOLT OW 100000= 01d sory ofes0q

puondg sey - sutajshg uoneytdroorg jeoruoys Arewtig Joy syuswosnboy onsned pue su] ‘77-7 242.

s1soZ Adojouyoay jUOWwalL,
Lio Bajoy a24nog julod LAD ey) 4of juaumnsog BuysoD papwiaq JOWAOISOAA JOIWAYD/wIISKYg Z UOT}OIg



Section 5 Additional Costs Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category

Table 5-5. Summary of Land Costs for Unimproved Suburban Areas -

Region: Northeast

State Land Costs per Acre ($)
0-10 Acres 10 - 100 Acres >100 Acres

Connecticut 70,132 54,886 37,679
Maine 26,136 17,424 15,246
Massachusetts 63,162 67,518 49,005
‘New Hampshire 65,340 50,094 43,560
New Jersey 103,673 88,426 76,230
New York 196,891 121,968 11,180
Pennsylvania 41,382 30,492 25,047
Rhode Island , * * *

Vermont * * *

ESTIMATED REGIONAL COST/ACRE($) 80,959 61,544 36,964

Region: North Central

Illinois 41,382 37,026 30,492
Indiana 40,728 13,068 9,438
Iowa 11,616 : 8,712 © 6,534
Kansas ; 10,019 6,316 4,792
Michigan 22,869 11,979 6,098
Minnesota 43,560 10,890 8,712
Missouri 65,340 28,314 26,136
New Mexico * * *

Ohio 21,344 12,458 9,932
Nebraska 30,492 26,136 17,424
North Dakota * * *

South Dakota * ~ *

Wisconsin 26,136 15,246 10,890
ESTIMATED REGIONAL COST/ACRE($) 31,407 16,988 13,068

5-17



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

Chemical Usage and Labor Requirement Costs

EPA estimated the labor requirement for the multi-media filtration system at four hours per

day, which is based on manufacturer’s recommendations. There are no chemicals associated with

the operation of a multi-media filter. The itemized O&M cost estimates for the multi-media
filtration systems are presented in Table 2-42. The resulting cost curve is presented as Figure 2-42.
The O&M cost equation for the multi-media filtration system is:

In(¥2) = 11.5039 + 0.72458In(X) + 0.09535(In(X))*
where:

X = Flow Rate (MGD) and

Y2= O&M Cost (1989 $/YR).

Table 2-42. O&M Cost Estimates for Multi-Media Filtration Systems

Flow Taxes & Total O&M
Rate Energy Labor Maintenance In ce Cost
(MGD) (1989 $/YR)

0.01 1,600 21,900 1,888 944 26,332
0.05 1,730 21,900 2,490 27,366
0.50 31,200 21,900 4,419 59,728

1.0 70,000 21,900 6,989 102,384



Section 5 Additional Costs Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category

The survey additionally provides land costs broken down by size ranges. These are zero to 10
acres, 10 to 100 acres, and greater than 100 acres. Since CWT facilities fall into all three size ranges
(based on responses to the WTI Questionnaire), EPA averaged the three size-specific land costs for
each state to arrive at the final land costs for each state. Table 5-5 presents a summary of the
estimated land prices for each state.

The survey did not provide land cost estimates for Alaska, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, Rhode
Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont or West Virginia. For these states, EPA used regional averages

of land costs. EPA determined the states comprising each region also based on the aforementioned

survey since the survey categorizes the states by geographical region (northeast, north central, south,
and west). In estimating the regional average costs for the western region, EPA did not include
Hawaii since Hawaii's land cost is high and would have skewed the regional average.

Table 5-6 lists the land cost per acre for each state. As Table 5-6 indicates, the least expensive
state is Kansas with a land cost of $7,042 per acre and the most expensive state is Hawaii with a land
cost of $1,089,000 per acre.



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

1,000,000
@® — 100,000 =
Q
8
2
3B
3
e)
3s
=
& 10,000
4,000 po pot iiiis
0.0001 0.001 0.01 ot 1 10

Flow (MGD)

Figure 2-28. Total Capital Cost Curve for Clarification Systems - Metals Options 2, 3, and 4

Figure 2-29 presents the land requirement cost curve for the Metals Options 2, 3, and 4
clarification systems. The equation relating the flow of the clarification system with the land

requirement for all Metals Options is:

In(¥3) = -1.773 + 0.513In(X) + 0.046(In(X))? . (2-29)
where:

X = Flow (MGD) and

Y3 = Land Requirement (Acres).

2-59



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

Table 2-12 presents the itemized O&M upgrade cost estimates for the secondary chemical

precipitation treatment systems. Figure 2-8 presents the resulting cost curve. The O&M upgrade

cost equation for the secondary chemical precipitation systems is:

In(¥2) = 9.97021 + 1.00162In(X) + 0.00037(In(X))*
where:

X = Flow Rate (MGD) and

Y2 = O&M Cost (1989 $/YR).

Table 2-12. O&M Upgrade Cost Estimates for Secondary Precipitation -
Metals Options 2 and 3

Total
O&M Cost
(1989 $/YR)

0.0005 il 11

0.001 21 21

0.005 107 107
0.01 214 214
0.05 1,070 1,070
0.1 2,140 2,140
0.5 10,698 10,698
1.0 21,395 21,395
5.0 106,976 106,976

Flow Chemical
(MGD) Cost



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

For facilities that already have any chemical precipitation (treatment in-place), EPA included
as capital expense only the cost of a holding tank.

The itemized primary chemical precipitation capital cost and holding tank capital cost
estimates for Metals Option 4 are presented in Tables 2-19 and 2-20, respectively. The resulting cost
curves are presented as Figures 2-15 and 2-16. The resulting total capital cost equations for the
Metals Option 4 primary chemical precipitation and holding tank systems are presented below as

Equations 2-15 and 2-16, respectively.

In(V1) = 14.019 + 0.481in(X) - 0.00307(In(X))?

In(¥1) = 10.671 - 0.083In(X) - 0.032(In(X))”
where:

X = Flow Rate (MGD) and

Y1 = Capital Cost (1989 $).

Table 2-19. Total Capital Cost Estimates for Primary Chemical Precipitation - Metals Option 4

Total
Capital Cost

Avg. Vendor a Total .
+ Holding + Engineer. &
Equipment Install. Construction .
(MGD) Cost Tank Cost Conting. (1989 $)

Flow

0.000001 282 217 175 674 202 876
0.00001 1,030 762 627 2,419 726 3,145
0.0005 9,286 6,400 5,490 21,176 6,353 27,529

0.001 13,709 9,330 8,064 31,103 9,331 40,434
0.005 33,709 22,390 19,635 75,734 22,720 98,454
0.01 50,006 22,390 25,339 97,735 29,321 127,056
0.05 123,550 22,390 51,079 197,019 59,106 256,125
0.1 182,398 22,390 71,676 276,464 82,939 359,403
0.5 450,652 22,390 165,565 638,607 191,582 830,189
1.0 665,304 22,390 240,693 928,387 278,516 1,206,903
5.0 1,643,772 22,390 583,157 2,249,319 674,796 2,924,115

2-32



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

from literature, the database for the proposed Industrial Laundries Industry guidelines and standards,
and sampled facilities.

For a special set of facilities--referred to as “group 5 facilities“ in the oils subcategory current
performance modeling estimates -- EPA estimated the chemical additions at 760 mg/L alum, 460
mg/L polymer, and 2300 mg/L NaOH. EPA costed these facilities for additional chemicals because
the concentration of metal analytes assigned to the group 5 facilities was significantly higher than
the metal concentrations assigned to the facilities in the other modeling groups (See Chapter 12 of
the Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category). Hence, it would be necessary to
use larger dosages of flocculent chemicals to remove the higher metals concentrations associated
with these group 5 facilities. Therefore, in addition to the four O&M equations developed for DAF
and modified DAF systems with flow rates above and below 20 gpm, EPA additionally developed
four O&M equations for these group 5 facilities

Finally, similar to the labor requirements shown in Table 2-54, EPA based chemical usage
cost estimates for the DAF and modified DAF systems assuming five days per week operation for
facilities with flow rates greater than 20 gpm and from one to four days per week for facilities with
flow rates of 5 to 20 gpm.

Tables 2-55 and 2-56 present the itemized O&M cost estimates for the DAF and modified
DAF systems with flow rates above 20 gpm. Figures 2-54 and 2-55 present the resulting cost curves.
The O&M cost equations for the DAF and modified DAF systems with flow rates above 20 gpm are
presented below as Equations 2-56 and 2-57, respectively.

In (¥2) = 14.5532 + 0.96495In(X) + 0.01219(In(X))* (2-56)

In (¥2) = 14.5396 + 0.97629In(X) + 0.01451 (In(X))* (2-57)
where: ,

X = Flow Rate (MGD) and

Y2 = O&M Cost (1989 $/YR).

2-101



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

required removals, which are based on the option facility’s operation. EPA estimated the pH
adjustment and buffer adjustment requirements to be 50 percent of the stoichiometric requirement,
which includes a 10 percent excess of chemical dosage. Table 2-22 presents the lime and caustic
requirements for the primary chemical precipitation systems for the Metals Option 4.

The itemized annual O&M cost estimates for facilities with no treatment in-place are
presented in Table 2-23 and the subsequent cost curve is presented as Figure 2-19. The O&M cost
equation for Metals Option 4 chemical precipitation is:

In(¥2) = 15.3086 + 1.08349In(X) + 0.04891 (In(X))” (2-19)
where: .

X = Flow Rate (MGD) and

Y2 = O&M Cost (1989 $/YR).

100,000,000 -——————_—.

10,000,000 | |

ca
=
3
oe ,
3
8
= Se
% = = =
3
.)
=
oS
3
‘ 100,000
40,000 po it po pl bo id bo
0,001 0.01 01 1 10

Flow (MGD)

Figure 2-19. O&M Cost Curve for Primary Chemical Precipitation - Metals Option 4

2-37





Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs

Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category

Table 2-20. Holding Tank Total Capital Cost Estimates for Chemical Precipitation -

Metals Option 4
Flow Average Total Engineering Total
(MGD) Vendor Installation Construction & Capital Cost
Equipment Cost Cost Contingency (1989 $)
0.000001 217 76 293 88 381
0.00001 762 267 1,029 309 1,338
0.0005 6,400 2,240 8,640 2,592 11,232
0.001 9,330 3,266 12,596 3,779 16,375
0.005 22,390 7,837 30,227 9,068 39,295
10,000,000
@ 1,000,000
2
8
3
°
g
& 100,000
40,000 Fe eT) ee ee as oo
0.0004 0.001 0.01 04 4 10
Flow (MGD)

Figure 2-15. Total Capital Cost Curve for Primary Chemical Precipitation - Metals Option 4

2-33



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

Table 2-35. O&M Cost Estimates for Clarification Systems - Metals Option 3

Taxes Polymer Total Total
Vol/day Energy Labor Maintenance & Cost O&M Cost O&MCost
(MGD) Insurance (1993 $/YR) (1989 $/YR)

0.000001 1,000 5,247 667 334 10 7,258 6,605
0.00001 1,000 = 5,247 667 334 10 7,258 6,605
0.0001 1,000 5,247 667 334 10 7,258 6,605
0.001 1,010 5,286 ; 706 353 15 7,370 6,707
0.01 1,104 5,614 968 484 150 8,320 7,571
0.05 1,520 6,070 1,475 738 750 10,553 9,603
0.1 2,040 6,335 1,861 931 1,500 12,667 11,527
0.5 6,155 7,146 3,596 1,798 7,500 26,195 23,837
1.00 11,464 7,596 5,025 2,513 15,000 41,598 37,854

O & MCost (1989 $/YR)

10,000 eee pot pop

0.0001 0.001 0.01 ot 1
Flow (MGD)

Figure 2-30. O&M Cost Curve for Clarification Systems - Metals Options 2 and 4



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

Capital and Land Costs

EPA’s air stripping system is designed to remove pollutants with medium to high volatilities.
EPA used the pollutant 1,2-dichloroethane, which has a Henry’s Law Constant of 9.14 E -4
atm*L/mol, as the design basis with an influent concentration of 4,000 pg/L and an effluent
concentration of 68 pg/L. EPA based these concentration on information collected on the model
facility’s operation. EPA used the same design basis for the air stripping systems costed for the

option 8v and 9v in the oils subcategory.

EPA obtained the equipment costs from vendor quotations. Table 2-38 presents the itemized

capital cost estimates for the air stripping systems. Figure 2-37 presents the resulting cost curve.

The total capital cost equation for the air stripping systems is:

In(¥1) = 12.899 + 0.486In(X) + 0.031 (in(X))”
where:

X = Flow Rate (MGD) and

Y1 = Capital Cost (1989 $).

Table 2-38. Total Capital Cost Estimates for Air Stripping Systems

System & Engineering Total
Flow (MGD) _ Installation Cost & Capital Cost
(1989 $) Contingency (1989 $)

0.0001 48,210 14,463 62,673
0.001 50,760 15,228 65,988
0.01 64,800 19,440 84,240
0.1 108,675 32,603 141,278
0.5 224,930 67,479 292,409
1.0 317,970 95,391 413,361

2-72



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

Chemical Usage and Labor Requirement Costs

EPA did not assign O&M costs and, in turn, chemical usage and labor requirement costs for
tertiary precipitation and pH adjustment to the few facilities which have tertiary precipitation (and
pH adjustment) systems in-place. For those facilities without tertiary precipitation (and pH
adjustment) in-place, EPA estimated the labor requirements at one man-hour per day for the rapid
mix and pH adjustment tanks. EPA based this estimate on the model facility’s typical operation.

EPA estimated chemical costs for the rapid mix tank based on lime addition to achieve the
stoichiometric requirements of reducing the metals and semi-metals in the wastewater from the
Metals Option 2 long-term averages to the Metals Option 3 long-term averages, with a 10 percent
excess. Table 2-16 presents the lime requirements for the tertiary chemical precipitation treatment
systems. EPA estimated the chemical requirements for the pH adjustment tank based on the addition
of sulfuric acid to lower the pH from 11.0 to 9.0, based on the model facility’s operation.

The itemized O&M cost estimates for the rapid mix and pH adjustment tanks are presented
in Tables 2-17 and 2-18, respectively, while the resulting cost curves are presented as Figures 2-13
and 2-14. The O&M cost equations for the rapid mix tank and pH adjustment tank are presented

below as Equations 2-13 and 2-14, respectively.

In(¥2) = 9.98761 + 0.37514In(X) + 0.02124(In(X))? (2-13)

In(¥2) = 9.71626 + 0.33275In(X) + 0.0196(In(X))? (2-14)
where:

X = Flow Rate (MGD) and

Y2 = O&M Cost (1989 $/YR).

2-27



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

Table 2-64. O&M Upgrade Cost Estimates for DAF Systems - Flow > 20 gpm

(ton) Mainten- Taxe os & Energy Labor Cement Cost oat Cost
ance Alum NaOH Polymer Perlite (1989 $/YR)
0.036 0 0 730 3,900 1,023 3,112 11,663 2,085 22,513
0.072 0) 0 730 4,875 2,045 6,225 23,325 4,169 41,369
0.144 0 0 392 5,850 4,090 12,449 46,650 8,338 78,269
1.44 0 0 2,190 7,800 40,903 —-124,488 466,503 83,380 725,264

Table 2-65. O&M Upgrade Cost Estimates for DAF Systems, Group 5 Facilities - Flow < 20 gpm

Fi t & . Chemical Cost Total
(Gp) Mainten- “7ACs Energy Labor O&M Cost
ance . Alum NaOH Polymer — Perlite» (1989 S/YR)
0.0072 0 0 730 780 37 171 641 84 2,463
0.0144 0 0 730 1,560 226 683 2,562 334 6,095
0.0216 0 0 730 2,340 509 1,537 5,766 751 11,633
0.0288 0 0 730 3,120 904 2,732 10,250 1,334 19,070

Table 2-66. O&M Upgrade Cost Estimates for DAF Systems, Group 5 Facilities - Flow > 20 gpm

taxes & Chemical Cost Total
uch) Mainten- T%*S% Energy Labor O&M Cost
ance ° Alum NaOH Polymer Perlite (1989 $/YR)
0.036 0 0 730 3,900 1,413 4,268 16,015 2,085 28,411
0.072 0 0 730 4,875 2,826 8,536 32,030 4,169 53,166
0.144 0 0 392 5,850 5,652 17,073 64,061 8,338 101,866
1.44 0 0 2,190 7,800 +~—»«-56,518 «170,726 640,608 °~——83,380 961,222

2-113



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

EPA estimated land requirements for the DAF and modified DAF systems. EPA assumed
that the DAF and the modified DAF systems have the same land requirement. Table 2-52 presents
the DAF and modified DAF land requirements, while Figure 2-52 presents the resulting cost curve.
The land requirement equation for the DAF and modified DAF systems is:

In (¥3) = -0.5107 + 0.51217In(X) - 0.01892 (In(X))” (2-54)
where:

X = Flow Rate (MGD) and

Y3 = Land Requirement (Acres)

Table 2-52. Land Requirement Estimates for DAF and Modified DAF Systems

Land
a Requirement
(GD) (Acres)
0.036 0.090
0.072 ; 0.132
0.144 0.212
1.44 0.720

2-97



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

Tables 2-59 and 2-60 present the itemized O&M cost estimates for the group 5, DAF, and
modified DAF systems with flow rates above 20 gpm. Figures 2-58 and 2-59 present the resulting
cost curves. The O&M cost equations for the group 5 DAF and modified DAF systems with flow
rates above 20 gpm are presented below as Equations 2-60 and 2-61, respectively.

In (¥2) = 14.8255 + 0.9741In(X) + 0.01005(in(X))*

In (¥2)'= 14.8151 + 0.98286In(X) + 0.01176(n(X))?
where:

X = Flow Rate (MGD) and

Y2 = O&M Cost (1989 $/YR).

Tables 2-61 and 2-62 present the itemized O&M cost estimates for the group 5, DAF and

modified DAF systems with flow rates up to 20 gpm. Figure 2-60 and 2-61 present the resulting cost

curves. The O&M cost equations for the group 5 DAF and modified DAF treatment systems with
flow rates up to 20 gpm are presented below as Equations 2-62. and 2-63, respectively.

In (¥2) = 21.8136 + 4.25239In(X) + 0.36592(In(X))?

In (¥2) = 21.6503 + 4.11939In(X) + 0.33896(In(X))?
where:

X = Flow Rate (MGD) and

Y2 = O&M Cost (1989 $/YR).



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

these concentrations and the Option 8 and Option 9 long-term averages. The median of these seven
calculated percentages is 25 percent. °

Therefore, EPA estimated the energy, labor, and chemical cost components of the O&M
upgrade cost as 25 percent of the full O&M cost of a new system. EPA assumed that maintenance,
and taxes and insurance would be zero since they are functions of the capital cost (that is, there is
no capital cost for the upgrade).

EPA developed two separate O&M upgrade cost equations for facilities which currently have
DAF treatment in place -- one for facilities with flow rates up to 20 gpm and one for facilities with
flow rates greater than 20 gpm. Similarly, EPA developed two separate O&M upgrade equations --
one for facilities which currently have DAF treatment in-place and were assigned Group 5
concentrations in the first step of EPA’s current performance modeling procedure and one for
facilities which currently have DAF treatment in-place and were assigned concentrations from one
of the other six groups in the first step of EPA’s current performance modeling procedure.

Tables 2-63 and 2-64 present the itemized O&M upgrade cost estimates for the DAF systems
for facilities with flow less than or equal to 20 gpm and greater than 20 gpm, respectively. Figures
2-62 and 2-63 present the resulting cost curves. The O&M upgrade cost equations for DAF systems
for facilities with flow of up to 20 gpm and greater than 20 gpm are presented below as Equations

2-64 and 2-65, respectively.

In (Y2) = 19.0459 + 3.5588In(X) + 0.25553(In(X))” (2-64)

In (¥2) = 13.1281 + 0.99778In(X) + 0.01892(In(X))? : (2-65)
where:

X = Flow Rate (MGD) and

Y2 = O&M Cost (1989 $/YR).

2-111


Section 4 Sludge Treatment and Disposal Costs __ Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category

C) and non-hazardous (Subtitle D) landfills. From this set of responses, EPA tabulated two sets of
costs -- those reported for Subtitle C contract haul and disposal and those reported for Subtitle D
contract haul and disposal. the reported costs for both the Subtitle C and Subtitle D contract
haul/disposal. EPA then edited this information by excluding data that was incomplete or that was
not separated by RCRA classification.

EPA used the reported costs information in this data set to determine the median cost for both
the Subtitle C and Subtitle D disposal options, and then calculated the weighted average of these
median costs. The average was weighted to reflect the ratio of hazardous (67 percent) to
nonhazardous (33 percent) waste receipts at these Metals Subcategory facilities. The final disposal
cost is $0.74 per gallon of filter cake. Table 4-6 presents this analysis.

EPA calculated a single disposal cost for filter cake using both hazardous and non-hazardous
landfilling costs. Certain facilities will incur costs, however, that, in reality, are higher and others
will incur costs that, in reality, are lower. Thus, some low revenue metals subcategory facilities that
generate non-hazardous sludge may show a higher economic burden than is representative. On the
other hand, some low revenue metals subcategory facilities that generate hazardous sludge may show
a lower economic burden than is representative. EPA has concluded that in the end, these over- and
under estimates will balance out to provide a representative cost across the industry.

EPA additionally estimated an O&M upgrade for filter cake disposal resulting from Metals
Options 2 and 3 for facilities that already generate filter cake as part of their operation.

This upgrade is 3 percent of the cost of the O&M upgrade for facilities that do not already
generate filter cake as a part of their operation. EPA used 3 percent because this was the same

percentage calculated for plate and frame sludge filtration for these same options.

4-13



Section 5 Additional Costs Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category

SECTIONS ADDITIONAL Costs
5.1 Retrofit Costs

EPA assigned costs to the CWT Industry on both an option- and facility-specific basis. The
option-specific approach estimated compliance cost for a sequence of individual treatment
technologies, corresponding to a particular regulatory option, for a subset of facilities defined as
belonging to that regulatory subcategory. Within the costing of a specific regulatory option, EPA
assigned treatment technology costs on a facility-specific basis depending upon the technologies
determined to be currently in-place at the facility. ,

Once EPA determined that a treatment technology cost should be assigned to a particular
facility, EPA considered two scenarios. The first was the installation of a new individual treatment
technology as a part of a new treatment train. The full capital costs presented in Sections 2 through
4 of this document apply to this scenario. The second scenario was the installation of a new
individual treatment technology which would have to be integrated into an existing in-place
treatment train. For these facilities, EPA applied retrofit costs. These retrofit costs cover such items
as piping and structural modifications which would be required in an existing piece of equipment
to accommodate the installation of a new piece of equipment prior to or within an existing treatment
train.

For all facilities which received retrofit costs, EPA added a retrofit factor of 20 percent of
the total capital cost of the newly- installed or upgraded treatment technology unit that would need
to be integrated into an existing treatment train. These costs are in addition to the specific treatment
technology capital costs calculated with the technology specific equations described in earlier

sections.

5-1



SEPA Detailed Costing Document
For The Centralized Waste
Treatment Industry

(EPA 821-R-98-016)

December 1998

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Washington, DC 20460

Support by:
Contract No. 68-C5-0040



Section 4 Sludge Treatment and Disposal Costs _ Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category

Table 4-3 presents the itemized O&M upgrade cost estimates for the Metals Options 2 and
3 sludge filtration systems. The resulting cost curve is presented as Figure 4-4. The O&M upgrade
cost equation for the Metals Options 2 and 3 sludge filtration systems is:

In(¥2) = 8.499 + 0.331Im(X) + 0.013(in(X))” (4-4)
where:

X = Flow Rate (MGD) of Liquid Stream and

Y2 = O&M Cost (1989 $/YR).

Table 4-3. O&M Upgrade Cost Estimates for Plate and Frame Filtration - Metals Options
2 and 3 (Sludge Stream - Excluding Filter Cake Disposal Costs)

Wastewater O&M
Influent Flow Energy Maintenance Labor Cost
(MGD) ; (1989 $ /YR)

0.000001 30 12 531 574
0.00001 30 12 3531 574
0.0001 30 12 531 574
0.001 30 18 1,063 1,113
0.01 30 56 1,606 1,693
0.05 31 180 1,606 1,818
0.10 33 328 1,606 1,968
0.50 45 1,668 1,875 3,589
1.0 61 3,716 2,146 5,924

4-7



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

Land Requirement (Acres)

0.10 Peat ee ee eT eT eT or TT
0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 ot 1
Flow (MGD)

Figure 2-47. Land Requirement Curve for Secondary Gravity Separation

Chemical Usage and Labor Requirement Costs

EPA estimated the labor requirement to operate secondary gravity separation to be 3 to 9
hours per day depending on the size of the system. EPA obtained this estimate from one of the
model facilities for Oils Option 9. There are no chemicals associated with the operation of the

secondary gravity separation system. The itemized O&M requirements for the secondary gravity

separation system is presented in Table 2-47 with the resulting cost curve presented as Figure 2-48.
The O&M Cost equation for the secondary gravity separation system is

In(¥2) = 12.0759 + 0.4401In(X) + 0.01544(n(X)?
where:

X = Flow Rate (MGD) and

Y2 = O&M Cost (1989 $/YR).



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

hydrated lime, 70 lbs of sodium sulfide and 500 gallons of water. According to the CWT BAT
model plant, the pricing of these chemicals was as follows: $0.11/Ib for ferrous sulfate, $0.044/Ib
for hydrated lime, and $0.38/lb for sodium sulfide. EPA assumed that the cost of water was
negligible compared to the other items.

Table 2-30 presents the itemized annual O&M cost estimates for the Metals Option 4
secondary (sulfide) chemical precipitation system. The resulting cost curve is presented as Figure

2-24. The O&M cost equation for the Metals Option 4 secondary (sulfide) precipitation is:

In(¥2) = 12.076 + 0.63456In(X) + 0.03678(n(X))* (2-24)

where:
X= Flow Rate (MGD) and
Y2 = O&M Cost (1989 $/YR).

Table 2-30. O&M Cost Estimates for Sulfide Precipitation Systems - Metals Option 4

Chemical Cost Total O&M
Flow Taxes & Labor Cost

Energy Maintenance
(MGD) Insurance Polymer FeS (1989 $/YR)

0.00001 1,000 77 39 13,116 1 1 14,234
0.001 1,010 946 13,475 9 72 15,985
0.01 1,104 3,310 14,741 87 118 21,615
0.05 1,520 7,945 15,696 438 3,588 33,160
0.1 2,040 11,584 16,126 873 7,176 43,591
0.5 6,200 27,804 17,171 4,368 35,880 105,325
1.0 11,400 40,538 17,641 8,736 71,760 170,344
5.0 53,000 97,299 18,784 43,680 358,800 620,212



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

Land Requirement (Acres)

0.01 po a a on 8 bo
0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01

Flow (MGD)
Figure 2-18. Land Requirement Curve for Holding Tank - Metals Option 4

Labor and Chemical Costs
EPA approximated the labor cost for primary chemical precipitation in Metals Option 4 at

two hours per batch, one batch per day. The labor cost was estimated at $31,200 per man year. EPA
based this approach on the model facility’s operation.

EPA estimated chemical costs based on stoichiometric, pH adjustment, and buffer adjustment
requirements. For facilities with no chemical precipitation in-place, EPA based the stoichiometric
requirements on the amount of chemicals required to precipitate each of the metal and semi-metal
pollutants of concern from the metals subcategory average raw influent concentrations to Metals
Option 4 (Sample Point-03) concentrations. Metals Option 4, Sample Point-03 concentrations
represent the sampled effluent from primary chemical precipitation at the model facility. The

chemicals used were lime at 75 percent of the required removals and caustic at 25 percent of the

2-36



Section 5 Additional Costs Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category

Table 5-5 (cont). Summary of Land Costs for Unimproved Suburban Areas -

Region: West
State Land Costs per Acre ($)
0-10 Acres 10-100 Acres >100 Acres

Alaska * * *
Arizona 70,785 45,738 21,780
California 319,622 272,795 310,365
Colorado 54,450 43,560 32,670
Hawaii** 1,306,800 871,200 *
Idaho * * *
Montana * * *
Nevada 54,450 32,670 21,780
New Mexico 43,560 21,780 15,246
Oregon 87,120 43,560 21,780
Utah * * *
Washington 105,633 80,586 4,792
Wyoming * * *
ESTIMATED REGIONAL COST/ACRE($)** 104,980 77,101 61,233

* No data available for state, use regional average.
** Hawaii was not included in the regional average calculations.



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs .

Chemical Usage and Labor Requirement Costs

In estimating chemical usage and labor requirements, EPA assumed the systems would treat
one batch per day. EPA based this assumption on responses to the WTI Questionnaire. Based on
vendor’s recommendations, EPA estimated the labor requirement for the cyanide destruction to be
three hours per day. EPA determined the amount of sodium hypochlorite and sodium hydroxide
required based on the stoichiometric amounts to maintain the proper pH and chlorine concentrations
to facilitate the cyanide destruction as described earlier.

Table 2-44 presents the itemized O&M cost estimates for the cyanide destruction systems.
Figure 2-45 presents the resulting cost curve. The O&M equation for the cyanide destruction system

is:

In(¥2) = 18.237 + 1.318In(X) + 0.04993(In(X))? (2-47)
where:

X = Flow Rate (MGD) and

Y2 = O&M Cost (1989 $/YR).

2-85



O1TP6SIT ITER | CepesNe —7ZE'BETT 689% €8e'61 69 v6l

ELLE | 9peIzHT | L9cL6I Serer lel coat vet iat ert wz Ose PL 6 91826 ‘ONIZ]
9st ell ot u 0 0 cr) i) sel sel 000 9700 9600 WARILLA|
lecooe | cee'rrl | Lzo'0z perrl 00 byl rd an 16% ore cee Le00 Lsse WOIGVNVAI
soccer | oxreor's | szs'ser | sps'oie 96e'p sore ony rie 60g vee Ioesee | 6eco 009'S6L WINALL]
eorzsez | cocer'z | oizsez | eerie z86% oz 862 siz stl sel pessect | 9201 O06 zee! NUL}
a soe w 0¢ 0 0 00 00 50 65:0 sero 9700 19¥0 WOITIVHL|
619 vy a) sh 1 0 00 00 veo Leo 6001 1600 ort ’aA'US|

0 0 0 0 0 0 00 ) ca 0% 0000 vio seo WINaTaS
Oco'ssz'l | 689'906 cos'szi 69906 406 brat v6 68"! 0% ese LE Bee GEL BLE ‘TAXON
Legal | psevel | sz9'si seve 61 el 1% ost o00'sh cove corsy WANSAGA ION
0 0 0 0 0 t) 00 cr) Leo ovo 0000 000s'0 00060 ANOVA
€L8'be1 366568 Lay'tl 000'6 sel 06 ca 60 or 167 zest seo Lsi'9% ASNVONVNY
tei'69z | coo'eo | cte'9z oor'61 69% 61 Lt 61 120 160 1s9'01z feo poOTIZ aya]
sos'sco'z | zip sol | iss'coz | I ve'9bt 60% orl vor cyl 661 sz vevers | oubst | oleees Nour
ege'gis'e | cor'go'c | seo'ige | ob9'092 ose 909% toe 19% orl 91 zsesect | spvo | oorgect wdddoo}
901'98 sso'eo 1198 902'9 98 ca 60 v0 88 poe sss'st osz0 608'st L1va09}
LEGG b | GISPIE | HEEZSH cav'ove ocs'y sore esp 9% LK4 et asvosil “seo Sboostl WNINOUHO|
gests SOBLe psvs cece €s 8 a) vO 990 £0 809'be 1200 6t9' bb WniNavo}
IL60pe% | pII'st9'l | L60'rze LISi9L 1b0Z Si9't Lia Tol £0l ru 966121 OLE 9ee'esl NOUOS|
9ES'L levs SL eps 8 s ro i) Lye 9% 900" $800 062" OINaSUY|
tes's6z 686T1Z esse 667'1e 96% le oe ve est voi 91e801 866% ICL ANOWILNY|
zov'seo'z | vsv'ecs'l | sbs'eoz | sve'6si soot 668 97 061 1p sve 980'8se 08s's 999'E9E WONIWATY]

casa | CiasaD | Clase | Cased | C1asad | Ciasad | QasaD | Cased | QuasaD | Q1asaD

aury | onsmey | sary” | onsm | amy. | onsm | ama | ansm |} amt | ons | (1) = Cay) (1/8)

pay, [Ao pay qwUIN||od

GoW ol = M011 GOW 10= M0 COW 1000 Ao} OW 190000= A001 soyey 280soq oar wen ant
€ pue z suondg sero

- (sjeaoway Jur 0} MEY) SopeIddy) UoTEHIdrooIg Spey] OANODIIg JOF SUPaID oNsNRD Y%Cz puR SUIT YSZ, —“S-T ATIBL

s180- Adopouyoay, juoweasL,
L10BajOD JANOS MIOd LAD ay 4Of juaunsog Suysor papwreq JOPOMOISE AA [LOWAYOwOISKYd 7 VOIDS



OLECEEEZ —9HOKTH | CLO ECE CEO'Erh | GEEZ

Lovzsi'z | restore | tocsiz | or'ore | zsiz : 097 ¥L6 6£ 91826 ONE
Ut ve ul st 0 i 00 000 9200 9600 WORULA
uysiz | weve | sre'ic | z6rle 817 : Te t ees 8€ 1600 is ee WIGYNVA
Ses's6'y | sw'ele9 | eos'eey | socies | 964" } 169 ye |” I9ES6L 6£70 o0y's6L WOINVLIL
escesze | Locos | Lze'sze | oresoy | esv'e 69 ple EEL SOT ooszeet Nw
19h $99 ob 99 0) 1 r 00 sevo 6s200 19%0 WOITIVHL
sio ¥L6 89 6 1 I r 00 600 1600 oor ‘WAAIIS}

0 0 0 0 0 0 I 00 000 vis0 870 WNINTIAS}
lopzee'l | sezece'l | ovezer | €ze'eor vi ES6ILE 98L7 GEL WLE DIN
liceoz | Liezox | Ieee | cover id £62 r 6% : : 000'sb fore eor'sr WANECEXTON]
ost 09% 81 % 0 0 I 00 i oszo L6r0'0 oo0eo AUDA
secoet | oe'ger | zeal | 969% 9€1 961 4 0% t Z16St svco isr9e, aSINVONVW)
eoceey | vcore | Lee'th 60 fh tp 1L0 zs9017 £0 PHOlIZ aval
Ose'sove | gree | Gestoze | veez g0z'e Te 661 vEevels SLYSI 1688s Noul]
169°989'S | SISW6E | OL9'89S | SHOE 1395 695 orl pal ZSOSELI 8hv0 OOY9ELI waadoo
o0r'sel e666 «| Ons‘el 6 sel vl 881 0% sssst #sc0 60852 1va0o|
opl'ivey | weeci'e | sui'roy | pecs | chev ei‘ ara €1@ lez | ssz9eit 18€0 SORT WNINOUHD|
vies si9%e 1el’s 1978 is 8 80 990 10 809 100 eo wnINayo|
goo'rrr'c | sagtecs'c | osvrpe | osczse | sre vee vv Tse col rt 966171 oevte STLEST Nowoa
1es oss‘ we ser't 8 a 10 ro We x4 90L'1 #800 06t'1 OINASUV]
eseze | corr | cecze | Olver we Sob we oF si 1 9IL80r 8664 vILOH ANOWUNY|
zwo'seez | eocbvl'y | goseez | oerbIy | suse vel'b 887 vib ry sy 9808SE 08s's 99996 WONIATIY|
quxsed | QaAsE) | Cased | QAsED | CASED | QASED [CASED | CASED | QAsED | GASED | Caw) Gu) (iu)
UT] ousne), Es osnie) UUry aun Es Erie) uur] EThie) [oA] [oaoy [eaoy wemnyod
ay Awad ANDY

GOW OT =O}. GOW T0=M0}7 COW 1000=M0}1 GOW 100000=401d soyey odusog

€ pue Z suondy spel - UoNeydroarg speyoy] OANODOg Jog sJUoUTOIINboY oNsNeD puw OUT *E-Z qVeL,

S1S0D ABojouysal JUWwOIT,
LioBay_ aomog wmlod LD ay} 1of juaunsog SunsoD paywreq JOVWMAISVAA ROMO TROISAYG Z UONIOS



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

EPA calculated the land requirements for secondary gravity separation systems based on the

separation systems. Figure 2-47 presents the resulting curve. The land requirement equation for the

secondary gravity separation system is:

In(¥3) = -0.2869 + 0.31387In(X) + 0.01191(In(X))* (2-49)
where:

X = Flow Rate (MGD) and

‘Y3 = Land Requirement (Acres).

Table 2-46. Land Requirement Estimates for Secondary Gravity Separation

equipment dimensions. Table 2-46 presents the land requirements for the secondary gravity

Flow Rate Land Requirement
(MGD) (Acres)
0.00001 0.097

0.0001 “0.114
0.001 0.158
0.01 0.225
0.05 0.341
0.1 0.381
0.5 0.492
1.0 0.891

2-89



Section 5 Additional Costs Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category

Table 5-4. Unimproved Land Costs for Suburban Areas - Region: Northeast
State City Land Costs ($/ft”)

0-10 10 - 100
Acres Acres

Albany 1.20 1.00
Buffalo 0.25 0.15
Rochester 0.75 0.50
Rockland/Westchester Counties 20.00 12.00
Syracuse 0.40 0.35
State Average Cost 4.52 2.80
Estimated State Cost/Acre($) 196,891 121,968
Pennsylvania Philadelphia 0.90 0.80
Pittsburgh 1.00 0.60
State Average Cost 0.95 0.70
Estimated State Cost/Acre($) 41,382 30,492
Rhode Island * *

* *

Vermont
REGIONAL AVERAGE REGIONAL COST 1.86

ESTIMATED REGIONAL 80,959
COST/ACRE($) ;



Section 5 Additional Costs Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category

Table 5-4. Unimproved Land Costs for Suburban Areas - Region:- South

State City Land Costs ($/ft)
0-10 10 - 100 >100
Acres Acres Acres
Alabama Birmingham 1.00 0.50 0.30
Mobile 0.75 0.50 0.50
State Average Cost 0.88 0.50 0.40
Estimated State Cost/Acre($) 38,115 21,780 17,424
Arkansas Fort Smith 0.75 0.60 0.50
Little Rock 0.15 0.10 0.10
State Average Cost 0.45 0.35 0.30
Estimated State Cost/Acre($) 19,602 15,028 13,068
Delaware Wilmington 1.50 1.25 1.00
State Average Cost 1.50 1.25 1.00
Estimated State Cost/Acre($) 65,340 54,450 43,560
Florida Jacksonville 1.00 1.00 0.75
Ft Lauderdale 4.50 3.50 3.50
Lakeland 0.45 0.45 0.30
Melbourne/ South Brevard Cty 0.80 0.80 0.80
Miami 3.00 1.60 -
Orlando 1.25 0.50 0.50
Sarasota/Bradenton 0.85 0.65 0.50
Tampa 1.75 1.25 1.25
West Palm Beach 3.10 2.25 1.75
State Average Cost 1.86 1.33 1.17
Estimated State Cost/Acre($) 80,828 58,080 50,911
Georgia Atlanta : 2.00 1.75 1.25
State Average Cost 2.00 1.75 1.25
Estimated State Cost/Acre($) 87,120 76,230 54,450



Section 5 Additional Costs Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category

Table 5-4. Unimproved Land Costs for Suburban Areas - Region: West

State City Land Costs ($/ft?)
0-10 10 - 100 >100
Acres Acres Acres
Idaho * * *
Montana * * *
Nevada Reno 1.25 0.75 0.50
State Average Cost 1.25 0.75 0.50
Estimated State Cost/Acre($) 54,450 32,670 21,780
New Mexico Albuquerque 1.00 0.50 0.35
State Average Cost 1.00 0.50 0.35
Estimated State Cost/Acre($) 43,560 21,780 15,246
Oregon Portland 2.00 1.00 0.50
State Average Cost 2.00 1.00 0.50
Estimated State Cost/Acre($) 87,120 43,560 21,780
Utah * * *
Washington Seattle - Eastside 4.50 3.50 -
Spokane 0.35 0.20 0.11
State Average Cost 2.43 1.85 0.11
Estimated State Cost/Acre($) 105,633 80,586 4,792
Wyoming * * *
REGIONAL, AVERAGE REGIONAL COST 241 1.77 141
ESTIMATED REGIONAL 104,980 77,101 61,233
COST/ACRE($)

* No data available for state, use regional average.
- No data available for city or area indicated.
** Hawaii was not included in the regional average calculations.

5-15



EPO'OILOSL OOTLOS'L TLO'SL ISL

SHOLEes LVS, S78 78 er score Svs0 6£ ONIZ
ty IL SIL L TO cat veo 7000 9200 WORILLA)
9OT'L81 Eat 61 cau) 167 L200 100 LE00 WNICVNVA
EIGTELT 6IELT €L1 “1 OE seco 4000 6&70 WOINVLIL
CHE'S9GT £5962 167 OE Sel L660 6200 9001 NIL
9671 €l 0 00 v0 1000 scoo 9200 WOITIVHL
STOLL Ol L ro ve0 4800 7000 1600 UIATIS|
LSELYC'T vLy'Z1 Sel rai 181 6LZ0 SEzO viso WNINSISS|
SOLB8LL CBRL 6LL SL: 68'T tel 901 L8LT ‘TEDIN|
1y9ESI'ST SESTIST SIS ras 1€@ see 790 €0r'e WONACGEATON
ess'th 6th v 00 Le0 6r00 01000 L600 AWOUIIN
LSC‘ esl Sul rai 69% $810 1900 svco SSENVONVIN
8h9'PHI vet ti v0 1Z0 $800 8060 £6€0 aval
GOL'LOL'ES LLLES LLE'S Ses 661 WEIL vel? LYST NOUI
0 0 0 00 ort 0000 160 gro ~ UdddOo}
O6L'T8S iss 8s 90 88T Ero vero SESTO TVa0o)
0 0 0 00 ele 0000 0690 L8€0 WOINO'HD|

0 0 0 00 990 0000 1010 1200 WINGY}

CIP PPLOLS bev LOLs LOLS LOLs €or BhS'EZ 7818 OELTE NOUO)
TEL'S8E L8s'e 6 v0 Lye 9900 8100 800 OINASIV)
PSL'IIG'8Z 811682 1687 68% reat LLGL 1200 8660 ANOWIINV
oog‘osr'Is GOS'PIS Seis sis Ip eves Leeo O8s's WONIATIV|

QaseD (Asa) QasaD qase) QasaD
Sur Sur cist Suu List (fu) GAw) = Aw) quennyjod

COW OL =I GOW T'0=A01 GOW 1o90=so11 | GOW TODOVO=Mo | sory oB1wsOq Gwaun Zuowrdg HUN
€ pure z suondg seyayl - UoNeNdtoorg Arepuooag Joy syuowrornboy oul] “01-2 MeL,

ssoZ Adojourypay, wawyvasy,
M1082)0D B2.4NOG Ilo LAD ay) tof maunsog SuysoD paywraqe JOVMAISLAA [LOWAYDAwOISKY 7 UO!IIg



Section 6 References Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category

SECTION6 REFERENCES -
Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Wastewater, 15" Edition, Washington, DC.

Henricks, David, Inspectors Guide for Evaluation of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants,
Culp/Wesner/Culp, El Dorado Hills, CA, 1979.

Technical Practice Committee, Operation of Wastewater Treatment Plants, MOP/11, Washington,
DC, 1976.

Clark, Viesman, and Hasner, Water Supply and Pollution Control, Harper and Row Publishers, New
York, NY, 1977.

1991 Waste Tre: ndust uestionnaire Respondents Data Base, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

Osmonics, Historical Perspective of Ultrafiltration and Reverse Osmosis Membrane Development,
Minnetonka, MN, 1984. .

Organic Chemicals and Plastics and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) Cost Document, SAIC, 1987.

Effluent Guidelines Division, Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and

Standards for the Organic Chemicals. Plastics and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF). Volume II, Point
Source Category, EPA 440/1-87/009, Washington, DC, October 1987.

Engineering News Record (ENR), McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, March 30, 1992.

Comparative Statistics of Industrial ice Real Estate Markets. Society of Industrial and Office
Realtors of the National Association of Realtors, Washington, DC, 1990.

Peters, M., and Timmerhaus, K., Plant Design and Economics for Chemical Engineers, McGraw-
Hill, New York, NY, 1991.

6-1



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

Table 2-53. Land Requirement Estimates for Holding Tank Systems

Land
Flow Requirement
(MGD) (Acres)
0.0001 0.0410
0.001 0.0470
0.01 0.0574
0.05 0.0862
1.00
g
&
E 0.10
3
&
001 po pa po pl pop
0.00001 0.0001 0.001 O01 O41
Flow (MGD)

Figure 2-53. Land Requirement Curve for Holding Tanks

2-99



Section3 Biological Wastewater Treatment Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Technology Costs

Operation and Maintenance Costs

The O&M costs for the SBR system include electricity, maintenance, labor, and taxes and
insurance. No chemicals are utilized in the SBR system. EPA assumed the labor requirements for
the SBR system to be four hours per day and based electricity costs on horsepower requirements.
EPA obtained the labor and horsepower requirements from vendors. EPA estimated maintenance,
taxes, and insurance using the factors detailed in Table 1-2.

Table 3-2 presents the itemized O&M cost estimates for the SBR systems. The resulting cost

curve is presented as Figure 3-3. The O&M cost equation for the SBR systems is:

In(¥2) = 13.139 + 0.562In(X) + 0.020(in(X))?
where:

X = Flow Rate (MGD) and

Y2 = O&M Cost (1989 $/YR).

Table 3-2. O&M Cost Estimates for Sequencing Batch Reactor Systems

Flow Rate Taxes Total
(MGD) Power Labor Maintenance & O&M Cost
Insurance (1989 $/YR)

0.001 65 14,600 8,260 ; 4,130 27,055
0.01 14,600 29,744 14,872 59,608
0.05 29,200 52,540 26,270 109,862
0.10 29,200 80,140 40,070 153,113
0.50 58,400 194,156 97,078 367,932
1.0 58,400 264,384 132,192 491,572



B9SEOb fOr'vee Lseop olrce oe"

zz wel Lt 940 INAINOOWIZ|
er wl 7 6 st ONIZ|
sel sel $000 8H0'0 WARLLA|
are ot 19200 Ta) WNIGYNVA|
Oe vee i eseeo shoo WNDINVLLL
scl ser Lszol wss0 Nu
sO 650 ozo'0 ovo WAITIVHL
v0 160 vo eel WALLNOULS|
690 wo £640 0400 ‘AA TIS|
Les os soe Ez NOOIS}
esl £07 Lisvo a) WINS TAS|
oat 07 ole 8961 ‘TaNOIN]
lez ose 20E 069% WONGEA TON
40 ovo £100 9000 AUNDUAN]
69 16% sve sore ASANVONVH
€e's ons o0o'r 09260 WAIHI
Lo 100 9190 9se0 ava
66 svt EES 67 8108 NOU!
100 £80 zi eave o0s"€ santaral
ort 91 cere 0080 WsddO9)
881 vor we'o zo L1va09}
fina et yr Leszt 1490 INNINOUHO|
970 10 i 10s'0 £900 wniwavo|
fol ri z ceeor lerze Nowod

0 0 0 Lyt 19% ceo 0870 OINaSUY|

£89 toy L s zs" vol w91s'0 8940 ANOWILNY
gseoot | o9s'sit 9L0'91 98st 809'1 stl 191 ol ir sve oRs's Tey Le WANINNTY|

ceoceoc oc en ee ose eon ec eso Co

0 0
461067 | Ist'60e

e
gs
g

-=ce8ceececsece enc cocoons eo oO Ce
°

°

(aasad | rasa | Qiassat) | Ciasa) | CuavsaD | QlarsaD) | CraysaD | Guavsay) | Grasse) | QiA/sa7)

aur] onsne) uy onsnuy errs onsnw) uy] ons) au] onsned (ue) (rau

pea0y A071 [Ao] wonyiog

GOW OT = Mord GOW 1'0= Nol GOW fo0= Mors GOW 1000= Nol soyey ofesoq fods-29S fous Aaepuores
soujd-uy juouneory, Arepuoosg

- puondy syejayy - soperddy uoneydioarg peopwoyD Areurstg Joy sjuawomnboy opsneD pue ou] *$Z-7 848 L

$}80D Adopouyoay Wwowywosy,
108 2)0) B04N0g Mog EMD a4) 4of maunsog sunso-) papoieq JOVATISRAA [ROIUIOYOAwIISKY 7 UoNag



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs :

In (V1) = 13.4616 + 0.544211n(X) + 0.00003(In(X))? (2-53)

where:
X = Flow Rate (MGD) and
Y1 = Capital Cost (1989 $).

Table 2-51. Total Capital Cost Estimates for Holding Tank Systems

Total Engineer. Total

Flow Equipment Construction & Capital Cost

(MGD) Cost Cost Conting. (1989 $)

0.0005 6,400 8,640 2,592 11,232
0.001 9,330 12,596 3,779 16,375
0.005 22,390 30,227 9,068 39,295

0.01 32,646 44,072 13,222 57,294
0.05 78,355 105,779 31,738 137,517

Capital Cost (1989 $)

0.001
Flow (MGD)

Figure 2-51. Total Capital Cost Curve for Holding Tanks

2-96



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

po ti po tt pop tl
0.001 0.01 O41
Flow (MGD)

Figure 2-29. Land Requirement Curve for Clarification Systems - Metals Options 2,
3, and 4

Chemical Usage and Labor Requirements

EPA estimated the labor requirements for the clarification systems for Metals Options 2 and
3 following secondary precipitation and Metals Option 4 following primary and secondary (for direct
dischargers only) precipitation at three hours per day for low-flow clarifiers and four to six hours per
day for high-flow clarifiers. Based on manufacturers recommendations, EPA selected the flow cut-
off between high-flow and low-flow systems to be 1,000 gallons per day. For the clarifier following

tertiary precipitation in Metals Option 3 only, EPA estimated the labor requirement at one hour per
day (based on the operation of the Metals Option 3 model facility). For all clarifiers for all Metals

Options and treatment train locations, EPA estimated a polymer dosage rate of 2.0 mg per liter of

wastewater (for the flocculation step) based on the MP&M industry cost model.
Table 2-34 presents the itemized O&M cost estimates for the Metals Options 2 and 4
clarification treatment systems, while Table 2-35 presents the itemized O&M cost estimates for the

2-60



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

Table 2-7. O&M Upgrade Cost Estimates - Selective Metals Precipitation (Raw to Current

Removals) - Metals Options 2 and 3
Taxes Total

(cb) Energy Maintenance & Labor Chemical O&M Cost
Insurance ° (1989 $/YR)

0.000001 1,000 42 21 52,464 2 53,529
0.00001 1,000 145 73 52,464 15 53,697
0.001 1,010 1,780 890 53,900 1,445 59,025
0.01 1,104 6,229 3,114 58,964 14,458 83,869
0.05 1,520 14,950 TATS 62,784 72,291 159,020
0.1 2,040 21,798 10,899 64,504 144,582 243,823
0.5 6,200 52,317 26,159 68,684 722,909 876,269
1.0 11,400 76,279 38,140 70,564 1,445,818 1,642,201
5.0 53,000 183,082 91,541 75,136 7,229,093 7,631,852

2.1.2. Secondary Precipitation - Metals Option 2 and Metals Option 3

The secondary precipitation system in the model technology for Metals Option 2 and Metals

Option 3 follows selective metals precipitation and plate and frame liquid filtration. This secondary

chemical precipitation equipment consists of a single mixed reaction tank with pumps and a
treatment chemical feed system, which is sized for the full daily batch volume.

As shown in Table 1-3, clarification follows secondary chemical precipitation for Metals
Options 2 and 3. The costing discussion for clarification following secondary precipitation is
presented in Section 2.2.2. The discussions for sludge filtration and the associated filter cake
disposal are presented in Sections 4.1, and 4.2, respectively.

Many facilities in the metals subcategory currently have chemical precipitation units in-place.
For these facilities, cost upgrades may be appropriate. EPA used the following set of rules to decide

whether a facility’s costs should be based on a full cost equation or an upgrade equation for the

_ secondary chemical precipitation step of Metals Options 2 and 3:

2-12



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

Capital Cost (1989 $)

1 po et 1 pop il 1 pt
0.01 01 1
Flow (MGD)

Figure 2-40. Total Capital Cost Curve for Multi-Media Filtration Systems

To develop land requirements for multi-media filtration systems, the vendor provided overall
system dimensions. EPA scaled up the land dimensions to represent the total land required for the
system plus peripherals (pumps, controls, access areas, etc.). Table 2-41 presents the land

requirement for multi-media filtration systems. Figure 2-41 presents the resulting cost curve. The

land requirement equation for the multi-media filtration system is:

In(¥3) = -2.6569 + 0.1937Lin(X) + 0.02496 (n(x)?

where:
X= Flow (MGD) and
Y3 = Land Requirement (Acres).



LIST OF FIGURES (cont.)

Plate and Frame Filtration (Sludge Stream) O&M Upgrade Cost Curve -

Metals Option 4
Filter Cake Disposal Cost Curve for Plate and Frame Filtration Systems -

Metals Options 2 and3 ...... eee eee eee eee cent tence ene e ees 4-16
Filter Cake Disposal Upgrade Cost Curve for Plate and Frame Filtration Systems -

Metals Options 2 and 3 ..... 6... 0c cece eee e teen e ee eee 4-16

ix



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

Metals Option 3 clarification systems. The resulting cost curves are presented as Figures 2-30 and
2-31. The O&M cost equations for the Metals Options 2 and 4 and Metals Option 3 are presented
below as Equations 2-30 and 2-31, respectively.

In(¥2) = 10.673 + 0.238In(X) + 0.013(In(X))* (2-30)
In(¥2) = 10.294 + 0.362In(X) + 0.019(In(X)? (2-31)

where:
X = Flow Rate (MGD),

Y2 = O&M Cost (1989 $/YR).

Table 2-34. O&M Cost Estimates for Clarification Systems - Metals Options 2 and 4

Taxes Polymer Total Total

Vol/day Energy Labor Maintenance & Cost O&M Cost O&M Cost

(MGD) : Insurance (1993 $/YR) (1989 $/YR)
0.000001 1,000 15,741 667 334 10 17,752 16,154
0.00001 1,000 15,741 667 334 10 17,752 16,154
0.0001 1,000 15,741 667 334 10 17,752 16,154
0.001 1,010 15,857 706 353 15 17,941 16,326
0.01 1,104 16,842 968 484 150 19,548 17,789
0.05 1,520 18,210 1,475 738 750 22,693 20,651
0.1 2,040 19,005 , 1,861 931 1,500 25,337 23,057
0.5 6,155 21,439 3,596 1,798 7,500 40,488 36,844
1.00 11,464 = 22,788 5,025 2,513 15,000 56,790 51,679

2-61



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

2.3 Equalization

To improve treatment, facilities often need to equalize wastes by holding them ina tank. The
CWT industry frequently uses equalization to minimize the variability of incoming wastes
effectively .

EPA costed an equalization system which consists of a mechanical aeration basin based on
responses to the WTI Questionnaire. EPA obtained the equalization cost estimates from the 1983
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Computer Assisted Procedure for Design and Evaluation of
Wastewater Treatment Systems (CAPDET). EPA originally used this program to estimate

. equalization costs for the OCPSF Industry. Table 2-36 lists the default design parameters that EPA
used in the CAPDET program. These default design parameters are reasonable for the CWT
industry since they reflect values seen in the CWT industry. For example, the default detention time
(24 hours) is appropriate since this was the median equalization detention time reported by

* respondents to the WTI Questionnaire.

Table 2-36. Design Parameters Used for Equalization in CAPDET Program
Aerator mixing requirements = 0.03 HP per 1,000 gallons;

‘Oxygen requirements = 15.0 mg/l per hour;
Dissolved oxygen in basin = 2.0 mg/l;
Depth of basin = 6.0 feet; and

Detention time = 24 hours.

EPA did not calculate capital or O&M upgrade equations for equalization. If a CWT facility
currently has an equalization tank in-place, the facility received no costs associated with
equalization. EPA assumed that the equalization tanks currently in-place at CWT facilities would
perform as well as (or better than) the system costed by EPA.

2-67



4-4,

4-5.

4-6.

5-1.

5-2.

5-4.

5-5.

LIST OF TABLES (cont.)

O&M Upgrade Cost Estimates for Plate and Frame Filtration - Metals Options
2 and 3 (Sludge Stream - Excluding Filter Cake Disposal Costs) ...
O&M Cost Estimates for Plate and Frame Pressure Filtration - Metals Option 4

(Sludge Stream - Including Filter Cake Disposal Costs) ...........0.000.0ceceeee 4-9
O&M Upgrade Cost Estimates for Plate and Frame Filtration - Metals Option 4

(Sludge Stream - Including Filter Cake Disposal Costs) ...........0.0.0c0000005 4-11
CWT Metals Subcategory Filter Cake Disposal Costs ............ 00.00 ce cece eeeeeee 4-14

Filter Cake Disposal Cost Estimates for Plate and Frame Pressure Filtration Systems -

Metals Options 2 and3 .............0 0. 0c eee eee eee :
Monitoring Frequency Requirements ........... 0.0.0.0 eee e cece eee c ene n eee ee eens
Analytical Cost Estimates... 2.2.0.0... ccc nce eee eee e ene eeeees
RCRA Permit Modification Costs Reported in WTI Questionnaires................0.0004
Unimproved Land Costs for Suburban Areas .. 2.02... 0c eee cece eee nee nen

Region: Northeast .... 0.2.0... eee cece cece ee eeneeeene
Region:
Region:
Region: .
Summary of Land Costs for Unimproved Suburban Areas ...........0000.0 0c cea eeee
Region: Northeast . .
Region: North Central .
Region: South ...... 2.0.0... ccc cece ccc cen ence eee n eee e eee
Region: West ....... 2.66. eee cee cece cence cece eee ene ee een eeeee
State and Land Costs for the CWT Industry



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs .

Because the smallest design capacity for DAF systems that EPA could obtain from vendors
is 25 gpm and since more than 75 percent of the oils subcategory facilities have flow rates lower than
25 gpm, EPA assumed that only facilities with flow rates above 20 gpm would operate their DAF
systems everyday (i.e. five days per week). EPA assumed that the rest of the facilities could hold
their wastewater and run their DAF systems from one to four days per week depending on their flow
rate. Facilities that are not operating their DAF treatment systems everyday would need to install
a holding tank to hold their wastewater until treatment. Therefore, for facilities which do not
currently have DAF treatment in place and which have flow rates less than 20 gallons per minute,
EPA additionally included costs for a holding tank. For these facilities, EPA based capital costs on
a combination of DAF costs (or modified DAF costs) and holding tank costs. Table 2-50 lists the

capacity of the holding tank costed for various flow rates.

Table 2-50. Holding Tank Capacity Estimates for DAF Systems

Flow Rate Holding Tank Capacity
(GPM) (gallons)
<5 7,200
5-10 14,400
10-15 21,600
15-20 28,800
>20 none

Table 2-51 presents the itemized total capital cost estimates for the holding tank systems.

The resulting cost curve is presented as Figure 2-51. The total capital cost equation for the holding
tanks is: :



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

10,000

@

>

é

®

8

3 1,000

8

é

= —SS—

2

°
100 re) es eo Ts ee ee | 2 eT
0.0001 0.001 0.04 Ot 1 10

Flow (MGD)

Figure 2-32. O&M Upgrade Cost Curve for Clarification Systems - Metals Options 2 and 3

10,000

4,000 ee

O &MCost (1989 $/YR)

100 Fee eT ee eT TT re, TY ee
0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 ot 4 10
Flow (MGD)

Figure 2-33. Plate and Frame Filtration (Liquid Stream) O&M Upgrade Cost Curve for
Primary Chemical Precipitation - Metals Options 2 and 3

2-65



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs .

Table 2-47. O&M Cost Estimates for Secondary Gravity Separation

Taxes & Total
Flow Rate Maintenance Insurance Energy Labor O&M Cost
(MGD) . (1989 $/YR)
0.0005 1,348 674 3,000 11,700 16,722
0.001 1,965 982 3,030 11,700 17,677
0.005 4,715 2,358 3,180 11,700 21,953
0.01 6,875 3,438 3,312 23,400 37,025
0.05 16,502 8,251 4,560 23,400 52,713
0.1 24,060 12,030 6,120 23,400 65,610
0.5 57,747 28,874 18,600 35,100 140,321
1.0 84,195 42,098 34,200 35,100 195,593
5.0 96,782 48,391 159,000 35,100 339,273
1,000,000,
a
5
8
3
= 100,000
&
=
os
fo}
40,000 Fe ee eT ae ee eT OT
0.0001 0.001 0.01 01 1 10

Flow (MGD)
Figure 2-48. O&M Cost Curve for Secondary Gravity Separation

2-91



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

© & M Cost (1989 S/YR)

40,000 Farr eee ee Te TY TT

0.00001 0.0001 0,001 0.01 04 1 10
Flow (MGD)

Figure 2-39. O&M Cost Curve for Air Stripping Systems

2.5 Multi-Media Filtration

Filtration is a proven technology for the removal of residual suspended solids from
wastewater. The multimedia filtration system costed by EPA for this industry is a system which
contains sand and anthracite coal, supported by gravel.

EPA based the design for the model multimedia filtration system on the TSS effluent long-
term average concentration for Metals Option 4 -- 15 mg/L. EPA assumed that the average influent
TSS concentration to the multimedia filtration system would range from 75 to 100 mg/L. EPA based

the influent concentration range on vendor’s recommendations on realistic TSS concentrations

resulting from wastewater treatment following chemical precipitation and clarification.
EPA did not calculate capital or O&M upgrade equations for multi-media filtration. If a
CWT facility currently has a multimedia filter in-place, EPA assigned the facility no costs associated

2-76



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

Table 2-26. O&M Cost Estimates for Primary Chemical Precipitation TIP - Metals Option 4

Total
O&M Cost
(1989 $/YR)

0.000001 20 1 262 8 1 292
0.00001 20 3 262 27 1 313
0.001 20 32 270 32 99 453
0.01 22 102 294 993 2,197
0.05 30 205 314 4,965 6,300
0.1 41 288 323 * 9,932 11,370
0.5 124 664 343 49,659 51,576
1.0 228 966 353 99,318 101,651
3.0 1,060 2,340 376 496,589 501,151

Taxes & Chemical
Insurance Cost

Flow

(MGD) Energy Maintenance Labor

Table 2-27. O&M Upgrade Cost Estimates for Secondary Chemical Precipitation TIP -
Metals Option 4

Total
O&M Cost
(1989 $/YR)

Taxes & Chemical
Insurance Cost

Flow

(MGD) Energy Maintenance Labor

0.000001 20 262 8 0 291
0.00001 20 262. 27 1 313
0.001 20 270 32 59 413
0.01 294 592 1,796
0.05 30 314 2,958 4,293
0.1 41 323 5,915 7,353
0.5 343 29,575 31,492
1.0 353 59,151 61,484
5.0 376 295,754 300,316

2-44



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

03) concentrations. This difference is an increase of approximately two percent. Therefore, EPA
calculated the energy, maintenance, and labor components of the O&M upgrade cost for facilities
with primary chemical precipitation in-place at two percent of the O&M cost for facilities with no
chemical precipitation in-place.

For the portion of the O&M upgrade equation associated with energy, maintenance, and
labor, for facilities that currently have secondary precipitation systems EPA calculated the
percentage difference between secondary precipitation current loadings and Metals Option 4 (Sample
Point-03) concentrations. This difference is also an increase of approximately two percent’.
Therefore, EPA calculated the energy, maintenance, and labor components of the O&M upgrade cost
for facilities with secondary chemical precipitation in-place at two percent of the O&M cost for
facilities with no chemical precipitation in-place.

For the chemical cost portion of the O&M upgrade, EPA also calculated upgrade costs
depending on whether the facility had primary precipitation or secondary precipitation currently in-
place. For facilities with primary precipitation, EPA calculated chemical upgrade costs based on.

current-to-Metals Option 4 (Sample Point-03) removals. Similarly for facilities with secondary

precipitation, EPA calculated chemical upgrade costs based on secondary precipitation removals to
Metals Option 4 (Sample Point -03) removals. In both cases, EPA did not include costs for pH
adjustment or buffering chemicals since these chemicals should already be used in the in-place
treatment system. Finally, EPA included a 10 percent excess of chemical dosage to the
stoichiometric requirements of the precipitation chemicals. Tables 2-24 and 2-25 present the lime
and caustic requirements for the Metals Option 4 primary chemical precipitation upgrades for
facilities with primary treatment in-place and facilities with secondary treatment in-place,

respectively.

' while pollutant concentrations resulting from secondary chemical precipitation are generally lower than those
resulting from primary chemical precipitation, the percentage increase (when rounded) for primary and secondary
precipitation are the same.

2-40



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

has selective precipitation in-place, EPA included selective metals precipitation capital costs for all
facilities (except one) for Metals Options 2 and 3. The total construction cost estimates include
installation, piping and instrumentation, and controls. The total capital cost includes engineering
and contingency fees at a percentage of the total construction cost (as shown in Table 1-1).

Table 2-1 presents the itemized total capital cost estimates for the selective metals

precipitation treatment systems while Figure 2-1 presents the resulting cost curve. The total capital

cost equation for the Metals Options 2 and 3 selective metals precipitation is:

In(V1) = 14.461 + 0.544In(X) + 0.0000047(In(X))?

where:
X = Flow Rate (MGD) and
Y1 = Capital Cost (1989 $).

Table 2-1. Total Capital Cost Estimates for Selective Metals Precipitation -

Metals Options 2 and 3

Flow Equip. Installation Piping Instrument. & Engineer. Total
(MGD) Controls & Capital Costs
Conting. (1989 $)

1,038

0.000001 410 143 123 123
0.00001 1,433 502 430 430 839 3,634
0.001 17,554 6,144 5,266 5,266 10,269 44,499
0.01 61,428 21,500 18,429 18,429 35,936 155,721
0.1 214,966 75,238 64,490 64,490 125,755 544,938
0.5 515,951 180,583 154,785 154,785 301,831 1,307,936
10 752,262 263,292 225,679 225,679 440,073 1,906,983
5.0 1,805,546 631,941 541,664 541,664 1,056,245 4,577,060



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

2.1.4 Primary Chemical Precipitation - Metals Option 4

The primary chemical precipitation system equipment for the model technology for Metals
Option 4 consists of a mixed reaction tank with pumps, a treatment chemical feed system, and an
unmixed wastewater holding tank. EPA designed the system to operate on a batch basis, treating
one batch per day, five days per week. The average chemical precipitation batch duration reported

__ by respondents to the WTI Questionnaire was four hours. Therefore, a one batch per day treatment
schedule should provide sufficient time for the average facility to pump, treat, and test its waste.
EPA also included a holding tank, equal to the daily waste volume, up to a maximum size of 5,000
gallons (equivalent to the average tank truck receipt volume throughout the industry), to allow
facilities flexibility in managing waste receipts. (The Metals Option 4 model facility utilizes a
holding tank.)

As shown in Table 1-3, clarification follows primary chemical precipitation for Metals
Option 4. The costing discussion for clarification following primary precipitation in Metals Option
4 is presented in Section 2.2.2. The discussions for sludge filtration and the associated filter cake
disposal are presented in Sections 4.1 and 4.2, respectively.

Capital and Land Costs

EPA developed total capital cost estimates for the Metals Option 4 primary chemical
precipitation systems. For facilities with no chemical precipitation units in-place, the components
of the chemical precipitation system included a precipitation tank with a mixer, pumps, and a feed
system. In addition, EPA included a holding tank equal to the size of the precipitation tank, up to
5,000 gallons. EPA obtained these cost estimates from manufacturer’s recommendations.

EPA estimated the other components (i.e., piping, instrumentation and controls, etc.) of the
total capital cost for both the rapid mix and pH adjustment tank by applying the same factors and
additional costs as detailed for selective metals precipitation (see Section 2.1.1 above).

2-31



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs .

Table 2-21. Land Requirement Estimates for Chemical Precipitation - Metals Option 4

Flow Primary Chemical Precipitation Holding Tank
| (MGD) Land Requirements Land Requirements
(Acres) (Acres)
0.00001 0.0791 0.0395
0.0001 0.0823 0.0410
0.001 0.0940 0.0470
0.01 0.1250 0.0574
0.05 0.1724 0.0574
0.1 0.2068 0.0574
0.5 0.2434 0.0574
1.0 0.4474 0.0574
1
ry
2
S
<
3
3
4
z
4s
0.01 Peet) oe ee eee) po il bop
0.0001 0.001 0.01 04 1 10
Flow (MGD)

Figure 2-17. Land Requirement Curve for Primary Chemical Precipitation - Metals Option 4

2-35



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

between secondary precipitation current performance concentrations and the Metals Option 2 long-
term averages. EPA determined facilities would need to increase their current removals by 3
percent. Therefore, for in-place clarification systems (or plate and frame liquid filtration systems)
which could serve as the clarifier following secondary chemical precipitation for Metals Option 2
and 3, EPA included an O&M cost upgrade of three percent of the O&M costs for a brand new
system (except for taxes, insurance, and maintenance which are a function of the capital cost).

For facilities which already have clarifiers or plate and frame liquid filtration systems in-
place which could serve as the clarifier following the tertiary chemical precipitation of Metals
Option 3, EPA did not estimate any O&M upgrade costs. EPA assumed the in-place technologies
could perform as well as (or better) than the technology costed by EPA.

The O&M upgrade cost equations for the Metals Options 2 and 3 clarification and liquid
filtration systems are presented below as Equation 2-32 and 2-33, respectively. -

In(¥2) = 7.166 + 0.238In(X) + 0.013(In(X))?
In(¥2) = 8.707 + 0.333In(X) + 0.012(In(X))?

where:
X= Flow Rate (MGD),
Y2= O&M Cost (1989 $/YR).

Figures 2-32 and 2-33 present the cost curves for the Metals Options 2 and 3 clarification and liquid

filtration O&M upgrade, respectively.



Section 4 Sludge Treatment and Disposal Costs _ Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category

Land Requirement (Acres)

0.07 Lepper en
0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.014 : 1 10
Flow (MGD)

Figure 4-2. Plate and Frame Filtration (Sludge Stream) Land Requirement Curve -
All Metals Options

Operation and Maintenance Costs Metals Options 2 and 3

The operation and maintenance costs for Metals Options 2 and 3 plate and frame sludge
filtration consist of labor, electricity, maintenance, and taxes and insurance. EPA approximated the
labor requirements for the plate and frame sludge filtration system to be thirty minutes per batch
based on the Metals Options 2 and 3 model facility. Because no chemicals are used with the plate
and frame sludge filtration units, EPA did not include costs for chemicals. EPA estimated electricity,
maintenance, and taxes and insurance using the factors listed in Table 1-2.

Table 4-2 presents the itemized O&M cost estimates for the plate and frame sludge filtration
systems for Metals Options 2 and 3. The resulting cost curve is presented as Figure 4-3. The O&M
cost equation for the Metals Options 2 and 3 sludge filtration systems is:



Section3 Biological Wastewater Treatment Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Technology Costs

To develop land requirements for SBR systems, the vendor provided EPA with overall
system dimensions. EPA scaled up the land dimensions to represent the total land required for the
system plus peripherals (pumps, controls, access areas, etc.). The land requirement equation for the

SBR systems is:

In(¥3) = -0.531 + 0.906In(X) + 0.072(In(X))? (3-2)
— where:

X= Flow (MGD) and

Y3 = Land Requirement (Acres).

The land requirement curve is presented as Figure 3-2.

10

0.1

Land Requirement (Acres)

0.01 1 n n i 1
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Flow (MGD)

Figure 3-2. Land Requirement Curve for Sequencing Batch Reactor Systems



Section 1 Costs Development Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category

management (also if needed). Table 1-24ists the standard factors EPA used to estimate the O&M
costs.

Sections 2 through 4 present cost equations for capital costs, O&M costs, and land
requirements for each technology and option. EPA also developed capital cost upgrade and O&M
cost upgrade equations. EPA used these equations for facilities which already have the treatment
technology forming the basis of the option (or some portion of the treatment technology) in-place.

Table 1-2. Standard Operation and Maintenance Cost Factor Breakdown

Factor O&M Cost (1989 $/YR)
Maintenance 4 percent of Total Capital Cost
Taxes and Insurance 2 percent of Total Capital Cost
Labor $30,300 to $31,200 per man-year
Electricity $0.08 per kilowatt-hour
Chemicals: .
Lime (Calcium Hydroxide) $57 per ton.
Polymer $3.38 per pound
Sodium Hydroxide (100 percent
solution) * P $560 per ton
Sodium Hydroxide (50 percent $275 per ton
solution)
Sodium Hypochlorite $0.64 per pound
Sulfuric Acid $80 per ton
Aries Tek Ltd Cationic Polymer $1.34 per pound
Ferrous Sulfate $0.09 per pound
Hydrated Lime $0.04 per pound
Sodium Sulfide $0.30 per pound
Residuals Management Technology-Specific Cost
Maintenance + Taxes and Insurance +
Total O&M Cost Labor

+ Electricity + Chemicals + Residuals



Section 3 Biological Wastewater Treatment Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category

Technology Costs
1,000,000
ical
=
é
Q
©
a
<= 100,000
@Q
8
=
3
fe}
40,000 o_o FY a ae a
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 4 10

Flow (MGD)

Figure 3-3. O&M Cost Curve for Sequencing Batch Reactor Systems



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

Table 2-23. O&M Cost Estimates for Primary Chemical Precipitation - Metals Option 4

(uicn) Energy Maintenance Labor panes & Chemical os Cost
(1989 $/YR)
0.000001 1,000 35 13,116 18 5 14,174
0.00001 1,000 126 13,116 63 48 14,353 -
0.001 1,010 1,617 13,475 809 4,844 21,755
0.01 1,104 5,082 14,741 2,541 48,436 71,904
0.05 1,520 ; 10,245 15,696 5,123 242,180 274,764
0.1 2,040 14,376 16,126 7,188 484,360 524,090
0.5 6,200 33,208 17,171 16,604 2,421,800 2,494,983
1.0 11,400 48,276 17,641 24,138 4,843,599 4,945,054
5.0 53,000 116,964 18,784 58,482 24,217,916 24,465,146

For facilities which already have chemical precipitation treatment in-place, EPA estimated
an O&M upgrade cost. EPA assumed that facilities with primary chemical precipitation in-place
have effluent concentrations exiting the primary precipitation/solid-liquids separation system equal
to the metals subcategory primary precipitation current loadings. Similarly, EPA assumed that
facilities with secondary chemical precipitation in place have effluent concentrations exiting the
secondary precipitation/solid-liquids separation system equal to metals subcategory secondary
precipitation current loadings (see Chapter 12 of the Development Document for the CWT Point
Source Category for a detailed discussion of metals subcategory primary and secondary chemical
precipitation current loadings).

For the portion of the O&M upgrade equation associated with energy, maintenance, and
labor, for facilities that currently have primary precipitation systems EPA calculated the percentage
difference between the primary precipitation current loadings and Metals Option 4 (Sample Point-

2-39



LIST OF TABLES (cont.)

Standard Capital Cost Algorithm
Standard Operation and Maintenance Cost Factor Breakdown .
CWT Treatment Technology Costing Index - A Guide to the Costing
Methodology Sections
Total Capital Cost Estimates for Selective Metals Precipitation -
Metals Options 2 and 3
Land Requirement Estimates for Selective Metals Precipitation -
Metals Options 2 and3 -
Lime and Caustic Requirements for Selective Metals Precipitation -
Metals Options 2 and 3
O&M Cost Estimates for Selective Metals Precipitation - Metals Options 2 and 3
75% Lime and 25% Caustic Credits for Selective Metals Precipitation
Upgrades (Raw to Current Removals) - Metals Options 2 and 3
60% Lime and 40% Caustic Requirements for Selective Metals Precipitation
Upgrades (Raw to Current Removals) - Metals Options 2 and 3
O&M Upgrade Cost Estimates - Selective Metals Precipitation
(Raw to Current Removals) - Metals Options 2 and 3
Total Capital Cost Estimates for Secondary Precipitation -
Metals Options 2 and 3
Land Requirement Estimates for Secondary Precipitation -
Metals Options 2 and 3
Lime Requirements for Secondary Precipitation - Metals Options 2 and 3
O&M Cost Estimates for Secondary Precipitation - Metals Options 2 and 3
O&M Upgrade Cost Estimates for Secondary Precipitation -
Metals Options 2 and 3
Total Capital Cost Estimates for Rapid Mix Tanks - Metals Option 3
Total Capital Cost Estimates for pH Adjustment Tanks - Metals Option 3
Land Requirement Estimates for Tertiary Precipitation Tanks - Metals Option 3
Lime Requirements for Tertiary Chemical Precipitation - Metals Option 3
O&M Cost Estimates for Rapid Mix Tanks - Metals Option 3
O&M Cost Estimates for pH Adjustment Tanks - Metals Option 3
Total Capital Cost Estimates for Primary Chemical Precipitation - Metals Option 4
Holding Tank Total Capital Cost Estimates for Chemical Precipitation -
Metals Option 4



Section 5 Additional Costs Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category

Table 5-6. State Land Costs for the CWT Industry

State Land Cost per Acre State Land Cost per Acre
(1989 $) (1989 $)

Alabama 22,773 Nebraska 24,684
Alaska* 81,105 Nevada 36,300
Arizona 46,101 New Hampshire ° 52,998
Arkansas 15,899 New Jersey 89,443
California 300,927 New Mexico 26,929
Colorado 43,560 New York 110,013
Connecticut 54,232 North Carolina 33,880
Delaware 54,450 North Dakota* 20,488
Florida 63,273 Ohio 14,578
Georgia 72,600 Oklahoma 24,321
Hawaii 1,089,000 Oregon 50,820
Idaho* 81,105 Pennsylvania 32,307
Illinois 36,300 Rhode Island* 59,822
Indiana 21,078 South Carolina 21,296
Towa 8,954 South Dakota* 20,488
Kansas 7,042 Tennessee 20,873
Kentucky 29,040 Texas : 47,674
Louisiana 56,628 Utah* 81,105
Maine 19,602 Vermont* 59,822
Maryland 112,530 Virginia 39,930
Massachusetts 59,895 Washington 63,670
Michigan © 13,649 West Virginia* 47,345
Minnesota 21,054 Wisconsin 17,424
Mississippi 13,068 Wyoming* 81,105
Missouri 39,930 Washington DC 174,240
Montana* 81,105

* No data available for state, use regional average.



Section 5 Additional Costs Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category

Table 5-4. Unimproved Land Costs for Suburban Areas - Region: North Central

State City Land Costs ($/ft?)
0-10 10 - 100 >100
Acres Acres Acres
Illinois Chicago 1.65 1.50 1.25
Quad Cities 0.25 0.20 0.15
State Average Cost 0.95 0.85 0.70
Estimated State Cost/Acre($) 41,382 37,026 30,492
Indiana Gary-Hammond 0.60 0.60 0.50
Indianapolis 2.30 - -
South Bend 0.34 0.20 0.10
Terre Haute 0.50 0.10 0.05
State Average Cost 0.94 0.30 0.22
Estimated State Cost/Acre($) 40,728 13,068 9,438
Iowa Des Moines 0.30 0.25 0.20
Quad Cities : 0.25 0.20 0.15
Sioux City 0.25 0.15 — 0.10
State Average Cost 0.27 0.20 0.15
Estimated State Cost/Acre($) 11,616 8,712 6,534
Kansas Kansas City - 0.20 0.20
Wichita 0.23 0.09 0.02
State Average Cost 0.23 0.15 0.11
Estimated State Cost/Acre($) 10,019 6,316 4,792
Michigan Grand Rapids 0.85 0.40 0.18
Jackson 0.20 0.15 0.10
State Average Cost 0.53 0.28 0.14
Estimated State Cost/Acre($) 22,869 11,979 6,098
Minnesota Minneapolis/St. Paul 1.00 0.25 0.20
State Average Cost 1.00 0.25 0.20
Estimated State Cost/Acre($) 43,560 10,890 8,712

5-9



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs ;

Table 2-32. O&M Cost Estimates for Plate and Frame Pressure Filtration - Metals Options
2 and 3 - Selective Metals Precipitation

Flow Energy Maintenance Taxes Labor O&M

(MGD) & Cost
Insurance (1989 $/YR)

0.000001 1,000 293 147 70,920 72,360
0.00001 1,000 293 147 70,920 72,360
0.0001 1,000 294 147 70,920 72,361
0.001 1,010 409 205 214,196 215,820
0.01 1,104 970 485 214,196 216,755
0.1 2,040 3,906 1,953 286,200 294,099
0.5 6,155 14,169 7,085 354,600 382,009
1.0 11,464 26,730 13,365 425,520 477,079

O & MCost (1989 /YR)

popitii

yoooo Ly pte ee
0.00004 0.0001 0.001 0.01 04 4 10
Flow (MGD)
Figure 2-27. Plate and Frame Filtration (Liquid Stream) O&M Cost Curve for Selective
Metals Precipitation - Metals Options 2 and 3

2-56



ze'siste ostelole| Lesisie - sictor'e SIS'IZ LOE aka ole
BEl'sesl | P6L'PL7'Z | PISLSI GLYLEZ SLs‘ seve est Le ert ical O97 bL6 oe 918L6 ONIZ]
stl 08! el 81 0 0 00 v0 set sel 0200 soo 9600 WARILLA|
goat | epeose | zzo'91 b60'ee 091 lez v1 £@ 16% ore cess Le0°0 Ls8e WNIGYNVA
zio'zis'e | Los‘e90's | tocise | ese'90s Liste oL0'S wse cos ove vee 19es6e aa) 009'S6L WAIN
lec'sse'c | les'ser'c | czs‘sez | oss'eve 986% ore eee re svi sel pee oeel | ocr | ons zeel NU
see 18h ve or 0 0 oo v0 #0 650 sero 9200 190 WAITIVHL
Sov bie 0s we 0 1 00 00 v0 e0 6001 160°0 oor SATS
0 0 0 0 0 0 i) v0 “et 0% 00.0 biso 870 WOINaTAS
ver'g00'l | Zoc‘ose'l | cP9‘00T OLo'shl 9001 Ish Vor fas 68 La ese lLe “see SEL PLE TANOIN
Zo'6rl | gos'riz | cos't 1ey't7 ort siz st 1 x4 x4 00's core corsh WANAGEA TON]
r) 0 0 ) 0 0 rr) i) 10 ovo o00'0 o00s'0 o00¢'0 AunoUaN)
868°66 Loe'erl 0666 00F'b1 001 as Or vt 69% 16% z16se sev'o esy9e ASANVONVN]
Leesiz | g6core | pestiz Oorle siz ole rad re 10 £0 Is9'01z a) pborllz ava’
Loe | GsOIsez | sor‘eor gor'see 19h Ise'% £91 cax4 661 4 PEP ELS OL'S1 olesss NOU
LOr'ess'z | Spe‘oLi'b | 11¢'68z POL 68°C oLt'b 68% cw ort al 7S6SELI spo OOF 9ELT ‘waddOd)
sa'so | \ £6766 888'9 6266 69 66 £0 or est 07 Sss'st sco 608'S7 L1va0o
GPOECE | IILEe's | see'zoe Meets POSE He's T9E tes LiK4 ee Bscogth “seo Spyosit WNINOUHO|
0co'th vas'og c0e'r 8s0'9 a 19 v0 90 990 £0 809'bb 1200 629" WAINGYO
LLUT6L'L | £8i'pes'e | 8L7'6L1 81P'8SZ COLE $3S'Z Ll Bsz £Ol Vu 966121 OEL IE 9CLEST NOUOE
6209 069'8 £09 698 9 6 “ro vo yt 19% 9001 ¥80°0 06L'1 oINasuy|
Livoez | ceziove | zps'ec 8LO'VE gee Ive ve ve zs'1 “9 91/801 866% PILoIL ANOWILNY
yoesor'z | 9ZI'6EO'e | GES‘OIZ EL6 EOE 8or'e EOE Vig vOE ie stb 980'8se o8s's 999E9E WANINN TY
(aassa) | CaasaD) | QiasaD | QlAsaD | Caa/saD | CralsaT) | QiA/saT) | QlAsaD | CuAsaD | CA/saD
au] onsne aur] onsneg aur] ousned, aut] onsneg any onsneg, (a/8u) (7/34) (7/80)
[ony cal pay qwenjjog
GOW T= NOLL GOW 10= A013 GOW 100'0= Mold GOW 10000'0= MOL soqwy a8usog one wenn and
€ pue z suondg sjejoyy

- (sjeAowoy juorIN|D 0} Mey) sopersdy uoHeydioorg spejo] OATJOOJOg JO sJuoWNbay onsneg YOp pue ou] YM ‘9-7 9IGeL

M10BaIDZD adMNOY MlOd IMD 24} 4of juaunsog Suysog papijeq

SJS0Z- ABopouyooy, uoUNeoI],
Joyemoyse my [BOIWaYO/eoIsKYg 7 UoH9Ig



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

Capital Cost (1989 $)

ee ee ee | |
.001 0.01 O41 4 10
Flow (MGD)

Figure 2-25. Plate and Frame Filtration (Liquid Stream) Total Capital Cost Curve for
Selective Metals Precipitation - Metals Options 2 and 3

The land requirement cost curve for Metals Options 2 and 3 selective metals precipitation

liquid filtration systems is presented as Figure 2-26; the subsequent equation is:

In(¥3) = -1.658 + 0.185In(X) + 0.009(In(X))?
where:

X= Flow (MGD) and

Y3 = Land Requirement (Acres).



Section 4 Sludge Treatment and Disposal Costs Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category

O&M Cost (1989 $/YR)

100 Leet tie pl
0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.04 0.1 1 10
Flow (MGD)

Figure 4-4. Plate and Frame Filtration (Sludge Stream) O&M Upgrade Cost Curve -
Metals Options 2 and 3

Operation and Maintenance Costs - Metals Option 4
The operation and maintenance costs for Metals Option 4 consists of labor, chemical usage,

electricity, maintenance, taxes, and insurance, and filter cake disposal. The O&M plate and frame

sludge filtration costing methodology for Metals Option 4 is very similar to the one discussed ©

previously for Metals Options 2 and 3. The primary differences in the methodologies are the
estimation of labor, the inclusion of filter cake disposal, and the O&M upgrade methodology.
EPA approximated the labor requirement for Metals Option 4 plate and frame sludge
filtration systems at 2 to 8 hours per day depending on the size of the system. As was the case for
Metals Options 2 and 3, no chemicals are used in the plate and frame sludge filtration units for
Metals Option 4, and EPA estimated electricity, maintenance and taxes and insurance using the
factors listed in Table 1-2. EPA also included filter cake disposal costs at $0.74 per gallon of filter

48



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

Table 2-28. Total Capital Cost Estimates for Secondary (Sulfide) Precipitation - Metals Option 4

. . Engineering Total
Flow Equipment Pipi Instrumentation + .
ping Installation & Capital Cost
(MGD) Cost & Controls Contingency (1989 $)
0.000001 218 65 65 76 127 551
0.00001 762 229 229 267 446 1,933
0.001 9,329 2,799 2,799 3,265 5,457 23,649
0.01 32,646 9,794 9,794 11,426 19,098 82,758
0.05 78,355 23,507 23,507 27,424 45,838 198,631
0.1 114,243 34,273 34,273 39,985 66,832 289,606
0.5 274,201 82,260 82,260 95,970 160,408 695,099
1.0 399,788 119,936 119,936 139,926 233,876 1,013,462
5.0 959,554 287,866 287,866 335,844 561,339 2,432,469
10,000,000
ae
Q 1,000,000
8
3
is)
gz
& 100,000 =
40,000 pop pi titel Lot tit pop visit pop pi iiiil Pot ipiit
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 4 10
Flow (MGD)

Figure 2-22. Total Capital Cost Curve for Secondary (Sulfide) Precipitation Systems -
Metals Option 4

2-47



Section2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

Table 2-2. Land Requirement Estimates for Selective Metals Precipitation -
Metals Options 2 and3
Flow (MGD) Area Required (Acres)

0.016 0.1413
0.0284 0.164

0.06 0.25
0.2 0.342

0.4 0.376
1.0 0.517
2.0 0.59
3.0 0.92
4.0 , 1.322

Land Requirement (Acres)

n pot

oO

0.01
Flow (MGD)

Figure 2-2. Land Requirement Curve for Selective Metals Precipitation - Metals Options 2 and 3

2-4



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

I ——————————————

100,000

40,000

O & MCost (1989 $/YR)

10 pop pl po il pot al bop iti
0.001 0.01 01 1 10
Flow (MGD)

Figure 2-8. O&M Upgrade Cost Curve for Secondary Precipitation - Metals Options 2 and 3

2.1.3 Tertiary Precipitation and pH Adjustment - Metals Option 3

The tertiary chemical precipitation step for Metals Option 3 follows the secondary
precipitation and clarification steps. This tertiary precipitation system consists of a rapid mix
neutralization tank and a pH adjustment tank. In this step, the wastewater is fed to the rapid mix
neutralization tank where lime slurry is added to raise the pH to 11.0. Effluent from the
neutralization tank then flows to a clarifier for solids removal. The clarifier overflow goes to a pH
adjustment tank where sulfuric acid is added to achieve the desired final pH of 9.0. This section
explains the development of the cost estimates for the rapid mix neutralization tank and the pH
adjustment tank. The discussions for clarification, sludge filtration, and associated filter cake
disposal are presented in Sections 2.2.2, 4.1, and 4.2, respectively.

2-21



Section 5 Additional Costs Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category

EPA notes that these analytical costs may be overstated for the oils and the organics
subcategories because EPA’s final list of pollutants proposed for regulation for these subcategories

do not include all of the parameters included above.

2. The monitoring frequencies are listed in Table 5-1 and are as follows:

Table 5-1. Monitoring Frequency Requirements
Monitoring Frequency (samples/month)

Parameter Metals Oils Organics
Subcategory Subcategory Subcategory
Conventionals* 20 20 20
Total Cyanide and Cr+6 20 - -
Metals 20 4 4
Semi-Volatile Organics - 4 4
Volatile Organics - ee 4ee

* — Conventional monitoring for direct dischargers only.
** — Volatile organics monitoring for oils option 8V and 9V and organics option 3 only.

3. For facilities in multiple subcategories, EPA applied full multiple, subcategory-specific
monitoring costs.

4. EPA based the monitoring costs on the number of outfalls through which process wastewater
is discharged. EPA multiplied the cost for a single outfall by the number of outfalls to arrive
at the total costs for a facility. For facilities for which this information is not available, EPA
assumed a single outfall per facility.

5. EPA did not base monitoring costs on flow rate.

6. EPA did not include sample collection costs (labor and equipment) and sample shipping costs,
and

5-3



BSEBLL 8L6'09s Ses'LL §—— 860'9S pail o19's BLL 198
° 0 0 0 0 ° fy 0 wi ze ooo We 1980 WNINODUZ
0 o 0 ° 0 ° o 0 er wi ooo'0 ee 6e ont}
ly ve s € ° o ° 0 scl sel lego sooo 9200 WORLLA
uw ie ’ € ° 0 0 0 ina 9% 190 19200 Loo WnlaYNVA|
0 0 0 0 o ) 0 0 ove vee ooo eseeo ira) WAINVLI|
t oO 0 0 0 0 0 oO svt sel 000°0 esol 9201 NU
9 v qT oO 0 0 0 Oo 1 #50 6s'0 900°0 0700 9700 WAITIVHL
exe's oou'e ees Le ws 8e s ’ +80 160 love ro lose WNLNOULS
o ° ) o 0 0 0 0 6x0 v0 000 €6670 1600 waats|
° ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 Les o's 000 sot 065% Noors|
801 aL Ir 8 1 I 0 0 ist 0% ze00 L180 vIso WINATAS
° ° t) o 0 0 0 0 6s 0% ooo ole Leet TAIN]
oct sto'1 raat zor ‘ ol 1 I lez osz creo 90 core WaNaasA TON
ve u z z 0 ° 0 0 160 oro Leo'o ee100 soo xunowany
o ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 69% toe ooo a) see0 ASANVONVIN
ELe'89F vor Lee Legon orL'te £89'p Slee 890P Lee ees us Soler o0Lo'y oseles INAIHLIT|
o ° ° o 0 0 0 0 1Lo 10 o00'0 9190 e6£0 ava
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 661 sve 0000 ES 67 9LyST NOU}
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LL0 £80 000'0 e8TE esve wnidnil
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ul ral o00'0 eure sro ‘waadoo|
ov % ’ £ 0 o 0 0 se 107% zi00 zo #570 Livaoo|
oO oO oO 0 0 oO 0 0 ere lee 000'0 lesz L8e0 WAINONHD|
Oo 0 o 0 oO 0 0 0 990 160 000°0 10s'0 1700 WINS)
les'zae zws'c0z esv'sz | pee'o7 878% se0't £82 Oe cor ri Loe'st cee 91 oeele Nouog|
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lye 19% 0000 060 $800 OINaSUY|
9e€07 iso‘ E07 9981 £07 Lp 0 st ws $9 1ehe isis 2660 ANOWLLNY|
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 irr sry 000 o8s's oss's WANINNTY
QiAsaD | QiAsaT) | QuaA/saT) | QIAsaD | (ua‘saD | QlAsaD) | CuA/saD | QlasaT) | ClasaD | Clase) (yan), (au) (au)
awry anise) aly] oust ur] ne au] onisme) eur] oisne e004 ono e107 wwemto
GOW OT = No} GOW 1'0= M013 OW 100= 01g GOW 100°0= NOL samy a8es0q SodsHd fods ‘ound
sovjd-uy quoweory, Arewtig
- p uondg spe - soperi8dq uoneydroarg peoruoyy Aru Joy syuouoAMboy onsned pue oul] “pZ-Z PGR IL,

M1OZaIDD BIANOS 110g TMD 2YI of juaunsog Suysog papinjaq

s}soZ_ ASojouyoo] JuoWeAL,
JoPeMOISVAA OTUIDYO/VoIsAYg Z UOI}Oag


Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

In(¥2) = 15.6402 + 1.001In(X) + 0.04857(In(X))? (2-3)
where:

X = Flow Rate (MGD) and

Y2 = O&M Cost (1989 $/YR).

Table 2-4. O&M Cost Estimates for Selective Metals Precipitation - Metals Option 2 and 3

Flow ; Taxes Chemical Total
(MGD) Energy Maintenance & Labor Costs O&M Cost
Insurance (1989 $/YR)
0.000001 1,000 42 21 52,464 7 53,534
0.00001 1,000 145 73 52,464 67 53,749
0.001 1,010 1,780 890 53,900 6,651 64,231
0.01 1,104 6,229 3,114 58,964 66,512 135,923
0.1 2,040 21,798 10,899 64,504 665,117 764,358
0.5 6,200 52,317 26,159 68,684 3,325,587 3,478,947
1.0 11,400 76,279 38,140 70,564 6,651,173 6,847,556
5.0 53,000 183,082 91,541 75,136 33,255,866 33,658,625

2-7



Section 4 Sludge Treatment and Disposal Costs _ Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category

1,000,000

O8M Cost (1989 YR)

10,000 Li ot
0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Flow (MGD)

Figure 4-3. Plate and Frame Filtration (Sludge Stream) O&M Cost Curve -
Metals Options 2 and 3

For facilities which already have a sludge filtration system in-place, EPA included plate and
frame filtration O&M upgrade costs. Since the sludge generated from the secondary precipitation
and clarification steps in Metals Options 2 and 3 is the sludge which requires treatment for these
options, these facilities would be required to improve pollutant removals from their secondary
precipitation current performance concentrations to the long term averages for Metals Options 2 and
3. Therefore, EPA calculated the percent difference between secondary precipitation current

performance and the Metals Options 2 and 3 long-term averages. EPA determined this percentage

to be an increase of three percent.
‘As such, for facilities which currently have sludge filtration systems in place, for Metals

Options 2 and 3, EPA included an O&M upgrade cost which is three percent of the O&M costs of

anew system (except for taxes and insurance, which are a function of the capital cost).

4-6



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

Land Requirement (Acres)

1 piri
oA

Flow (MGD)

Figure 2-38. Land Requirement Curve for Air Stripping Systems

Operation and Maintenance Costs
For air stripping, O&M costs include electricity, maintenance, labor, catalyst replacement,

and taxes and insurance. EPA obtained the O&M costs from the same vendor which provided the
capital cost estimates.

EPA based the electricity usage for the air strippers on the amount of horsepower needed to
operate the system and approximated the electricity usage for the catalytic oxidizers at 50 percent
of the electricity used for the air strippers. EPA based both the horsepower requirements and the

electricity requirements for the catalytic oxidizer on vendor’s recommendations. EPA estimated the

labor requirement for the air stripping system at three hours per day, which is based on the model
facility’s operation. EPA assumed that the catalyst beds in the catalytic oxidizer would require

replacement every four years based on the rule of thumb (provided by the vendor) that precious

2-74



Section 5 Additional Costs Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category

Table 5-5 (cont.). Summary of Land Costs for Unimproved Suburban Areas -

Region: South

Land Costs per Acre ($)
0-10 Acres 10-100 Acres >100 Acres

Alabama 38,115 21,780 17,424
Arkansas 19,602 15,028 13,068
Delaware 65,340 54,450 43,560
Florida 80,828 58,080 50,911
Georgia . 87,120 76,230 54,450
Kentucky 34,848 30,492 "21,780
Louisiana 65,340 - $4,450 50,094
Maryland 130,680 130,680 76,230
Mississippi 21,780 8,712 8,712
North Carolina 34,848 38,478 28,314
Oklahoma 26,136 27,225 19,602
South Carolina 30,492 19,602 13,794
Tennessee 28,859 18,513 15,246
Texas 64,251 47,190 31,581
Virginia . 43,560 43,560 32,670
District of Columbia 196,020 152,460 -

* * *

West Virginia
ESTIMATED REGIONAL COST/ACRE($) 60,521 49,658



Soles

ef

Sel

cose
$89
1
Lie
Tey
COLL
Stee
lo
Olee
Of
0
ly
0
16S'%

CAA
Of

€
0
v
0
6ST

wz
€
€€
0
0
0
0
9%

ral
00
00
00
00
00
(0)
To
of
£0
00
£0
vO
vil
tt
£0
te
oo
00
00
00
97

er
Stl
16%
60€
stl
$S'0
Peo
281
681
1€7
Le0
69T
0
661
ol
sel
K4
990
fol
Lee
wh
ire

ONIZ}
WORILLA|
WNIGYNVA
WOINVILLL
Nil
WNITIVHL
USA TS)
WNINA TES,
‘TAXOIN)
WNNGA TON
AUNDUIN|
ASANVONVW|
ava}

NOU]
WaddOo|
L1vaoo:
WNINOUHO}
WNINGVO)
NOUWO)
OINTSUV
ANOWILNV)
WANINNIV

(ua/sa7)
aunty

QiaisaD)
Sut

(uassa7)
Buy

(QuAsaD

SUT

quaisa)
au]

GOW 01 = N0fd

GOW 10= MOLT

COW 100=MO0l | GOW 1000=M01r

soiry o8vsoq.

(1A)

e-zuondo

(1/8) (17a) werny|od
euondo Tuondo

E uondo speropy - uoIedtoarg peoruayD Arena], Joy sjuswexmbsy aw] “91-7 242,

ClOZAIOD BIANOG W)Og LMD 24} tof juaunsog Buyso-D payoyeq

s1so7) Adojouypay, juouneasy,
Fo}wanoyseyy [wOIUTYD/|eoISKd Z uONIAg



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

Table 2-37. Total Capital Cost, O&M Cost, and Land Requirement Estimates

for Equalization Systems
Flow Rate Capital Cost O & M Cost Land Requirement
(MGD) (1989 $) (1989 $/YR) (acres)

0.001 59,800 33,400 0.0003
0.005 62,300 41,100 0.0015

0.01 64,200 45,400 0.003

0.05 73,200 59,100 0.015

0.10 80,680 67,600 0.03

0.50 119,100 97,500 0.15

0.75 137,900 108,700 0.34

1.0 155,100 117,900 0.46

1.5 215,900 137,900 0.69

2.0 222,200 * 150,200 0.92

3.0 309,600 178,100 “1.38

4.0 352,900 202,200 1.84

5.0 423,500 226,900 2.30

1,000,000
2
=
B 100,000
S
z
6
10,000 Fe OT YY RT
0.0001 0.001 0.01 Ot 1 10

Flow (MGD)

Figure 2-34. Total Capital Cost Curve for Equalization Systems

2-69



Section6 References Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category

Chemical Marketing Reporter, Schnell Publishing Company, Inc., New York, NY, May 10, 1993.

Palmer, S.K., Breton, M.A., Nunno, T.J., Sullivan, D.M., and Supprenaut, N.F., Metal/Cyanide
tment Technologies, Alliance Technical Corporation, Bedford, MA, 1988.

Freeman, H.M., Standard Handbook of Hazardous Waste Treatment_and Disposal, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1989.

Effluent Guidelines Division, Development Document for the Proposed Effluent Limitations
ine: standards for thi tals Products and Machinery Phase 1 Point So ‘ategor

Point Source Category, EPA 821-R-95-021, Washington, DC, April 1995.

Control _and Treatment Technology for the Metal Finishing Industry. Sulfide Precipitation.
Summary Report EPA 625/8-80-003, April 1980.



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

For costing purposes, EPA assumed that facilities either have secondary precipitation
currently in-place and attributes no additional capital and O&M costs to these facilities, or EPA
assumes that facilities do not have secondary sulfide precipitation in-place and, consequently, EPA
developed costs for full O&M and capital costs. Therefore, EPA has not developed upgrade costs
associated with secondary precipitation in Metals Option 4.

Capital and Land Costs

EPA developed capital cost estimates for the secondary sylfide precipitation systems in
Metals Option 4 from vendor’s quotes. EPA estimated the other components (i.e., piping,
instrumentation, and controls, etc.) of the sulfide precipitation system by applying the same
methodology, factors and additional costs as outlined for the primary chemical precipitation system
for Metals Option 4 (see Section 2.1.4 above). Table 2-28 presents the itemized capital cost
estimates for the secondary precipitation (sulfide precipitation) systems, while Figure 2-22 presents

the resulting cost curve. The total capital cost equation for Metals Option 4 secondary (sulfide)

precipitation is:

In(¥1) = 13.829 + 0.544In(X) + 0.00000496(In(X))*
where:

X = Flow Rate (MGD) and

Y1 = Capital Cost (1989 $).



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

~~

pop ii po pai po tit po
0.001 0.01 ot 4
Flow (MGD)

Figure 2-35. Land Requirement Curve for Equalization Systems

Operation and Maintenance Costs
EPA obtained O&M costs directly from the initial year O&M costs produced by the
CAPDET program. The O&M cost estimates for equalization systems are presented in Table 2-37.

Figure 2-36 presents the resulting cost curve. The O&M cost equation for the equalization systems

1s:

In(¥2) = 11.723 + 0.311In(X) + 0.019(0n(®))* (2-38)
where:

X= Flow Rate (MGD) and

Y2 =O & M Cost (1989 $/YR).



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater

Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category

Treatment Technology Costs
100,000
a
>
&
s .
8
3
6
=
oS
°
40,000 . po L Fr eee ae ee
0.001 0.010 0.100
Flow (MGD)

Figure 2-56. O&M Cost Curve for DAF

Systems - Flow < 20 gpm

100,000

z L

£

a VA

2

3

&

z

3

&

=

=

°

10,000 1 ny 1 1 — 4 4 i 4 n n a
0.001 0.010 0,100
Flow (MGD)

Figure 2-57. O&M Cost Curve for Modified DAF Systems - Flow < 20 gpm

2-105



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

Table 2-62. O&M Cost Estimates for Modified DAF Systems, Group 5 Facilities - Flow < 20 gpm

Flow Texes & Chemical Cost Total

Mainten- Energy Labor O&M Cost
MGD) .
(MGD) ‘ance 18H NaOH Polymer _~—Perlite_-—=—*(1989 S/YR)

0.0072 3,064 1,532 2,920 3,120 683 2,562 334 14,441
0.0144 3,064 1,532 2,920 6,240 2,732 10,250 1,334 28,976
0.0216 3,064 1,532 2,920 9,360 6,146 23,062 3,002 51,121

0.0288 3,064 1,532 2,920 12,480 10,926 40,999 5,336 80,874

E

8
8

O &MCost (1989 WYR)

Flow (MGD)

Figure 2-58. O&M Cost Curve for Group 5 DAF Systems - Flow > 20 gpm



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

Table 2-9 presents the land requirements for the secondary chemical precipitation treatment
systems. Figure 2-6 presents the resulting cost curve. The land requirement equation for Metals

Options 2 and 3 secondary chemical precipitation is:

In(¥3) = -1.15 + 0.449In(X) + 0.027(In(X))? (2-6)
where:

X = Flow Rate (MGD) and

Y3 = Land Requirement (Acres).

Table 2-9. Land Requirement Estimates for Secondary Precipitation -

Metals Options 2 and 3
Flow Area Required
(MGD) (Acres)
0.0040 0.056
0.0071 0.063
0.015 0.088
0.100 0.126
0.250 0.166
0.500 0.186
1.00 0.388

2-15



Section 5 Additional Costs Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category

5.2. Monitoring Costs

CWT facilities that discharge process wastewater directly to a receiving stream or indirectly

toa POTW will have monitoring costs. EPA regulations require both direct discharge with NPDES
permits and indirect dischargers subject to categorical pretreatment standards to monitor their
effluent.

EPA used the following generalizations to estimate the CWT monitoring costs:

EPA included analytical cost for parameters at each subcategory as follows:

TSS, O&G, Cr+6, total CN, and full metals analyses for the metals subcategory
direct dischargers, and Cr+6, total CN, and full metals analyses for the metals
subcategory indirect dischargers;

TSS, O&G, and full metals and semi-volatiles analyses for the oils subcategory
option 8 and 9 direct dischargers, and full metals, and semi-volatiles for oils
subcategory options 8 and 9 indirect dischargers; and

TSS, O&G, and full metals, volatiles and semi-volatiles analyses for the oils
subcategory direct dischargers, and full metals, volatiles, and semi-volatiles for oils
subcategory option 8V and 9V indirect dischargers; and

TSS, BOD,, O&G, 6 individual metals, volatiles, and semi-volatiles analyses for the
organics subcategory option 3 direct dischargers, and 6 individual metals, volatiles,
and semi-volatiles analyses for the organics subcategory option 3 indirect
dischargers; and

TSS, BOD,, O&G, 6 individual metals, and semi-volatiles analyses for the organics
subcategory option 4 direct dischargers, and 6 individual metals and semi-volatiles
analyses for the organics subcategory option 4 indirect dischargers.



2-24.

2-25.

2-26.

2-27.

2-28.

2-29.
2-30.
2-31.
2-32.

2-33.

2-34.
2-35.
2-36.
2-37.
2-38.
2-39.
2-40.
2-41.
2-42.
2-43.

2-44,

2-45.

2-46.
2-47.

LIST OF FIGURES (cont.)

O&M Cost Curve for Secondary (Sulfide) Precipitation Systems -

Metals Option 4... 2.0.6... e cece cee ence nee t ence tne ee tenes 2-51
Plate and Frame Filtration (Liquid Stream) Total Capital Cost Curve

for Selective Metals Precipitation - Metals Options 2 and3 ............2...0.005 2-54
Plate and Frame Filtration (Liquid Stream) Land Requirement Curve for

Selective Metals Precipitation - Metals Option 2 and3 ..............0.000000008 2-55
Plate and Frame Filtration (Liquid Stream) O&M Cost Curve for

Selective Metals Precipitation - Metals Options 2 and3 ..............00.0.00008 2-56
Total Capital Cost Curve or Clarification Systems -

Metals Options 2,3, and 4 6... ccc cece ee ete e ence eeenee 2-59
Land Requirement Curve for Clarification Systems - Metals Options 2,3, and4.......... 2-60
O&M Cost Curve for Clarification Systems - Metals Options 2 and 4 ..........0.0. 000. 2-62
O&M Cost Curve for Clarification Systems - Metals Option3 ..............-..0 eee eee 2-63
O&M Upgrade Cost Curve for Clarification Systems -

Metals Options 2 and 3... 2.2.0... 6 cece cece ccc ee eee eee e en eeeees 2-65
Plate and Frame Filtration (Liquid Stream) O&M Upgrade Cost Curve

for Primary Chemical Precipitation - Metals Options 2 and3 ..............-.0005 2-65

Total Capital Cost Curve for Equalization Systems
Land Requirement Curve for Equalization Systems .
O&M Cost Curve for Equalization Systems

Total Capital Cost Curve for Air Stripper Systems

Land Requirement Curve for Air Stripper Systems . .
O&M Cost Curve for Air Stripping Systems
Total Capital Cost Curve for Multi-Media Filtration Systems ................020200005 2-78
Land Requirement Curve for Multi-Media Filtration Systems ..............-020000005 2-79
O&M Cost Curve for Multi-Media Filtration Systems ....
Total Capital Cost Curve for CN Destruction Systems at

Special Operating Conditions ..... 2.0.0.6... cece e cece eee eee e eee 2-83
Land Requirement Curve for CN Destruction Systems at

Special Operating Conditions ..... 2.0.0.6... eee cece eee eee nee 2-84
O&M Cost Curve for CN Destruction Systems at Special

Operating Condition ...... 2.2... cece eee cence cece eee eee
Total Capital Costs for Secondary Gravity Separation ..
Land Requirement Curve for Secondary Gravity Separation ...............0.-00020005 2-90

vii



- Section 4 Sludge Treatment and Disposal Costs __ Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category

SECTION4 SLUDGE TREATMENT AND DisposaL Costs

4.1 Plate and Frame Pressure Filtration - Sludge Stream

Pressure filtration systems are used for the removal of solids from waste streams. This
section details sludge stream filtration which is used to treat the solids removed by the clarifiers in
the Metals Options.

The pressure filtration system costed by EPA for sludge stream filtration consists of a plate
and frame filtration system. The components of the plate and frame filtration system include: filter
plates, filter cloth, hydraulic pumps, pneumatic booster pumps, control panel, connector pipes, and
asupport platform. For design purposes, EPA assumed the sludge stream to consist of 80 percent
liquid and 20 percent (200,000 mg/1) solids. EPA additionally assumed the sludge stream to be 20
percent of the total volume of wastewater treated. EPA based these design parameters on CWT
Questionnaire 105.

In costing for sludge stream treatment, if a facility does not have sludge filtration systems in-
place, EPA estimated capital costs to add a plate and frame pressure filtration system to their on-site
treatment train’. If a facility’s’s treatment train includes more than one clarification step in its
treatment train (such as for Metals Option 3), EPA only costed the facility for a single plate and
frame filtration system. “EPA assumed one plate and frame filtration system could be used to process
the sludge from multiple clarifiers. Likewise, if a facility already had a sludge filtration system in-
place, EPA assumed that the in-place system would be sufficient and did not estimate any sludge
filtration capital costs for these facilities.

2 if a facility only had to be costed for a plate and frame pressure filtration system to process the sludge
produced during the tertiary chemical precipitation and clarifications steps of metals Option 3, EPA did not cost the
facility for a plate and frame pressure filtration system. Likewise, EPA assumed no O&M costs associated with the
treatment of sludge from the tertiary chemical precipitation and clarification steps in Metals Option 3. EPA assumed
that the total suspended solids concentration at this point is so low that sludge stream filtration is unnecessary.

4-1



Section 4 Sludge Treatment and Disposal Costs _ Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category

cake. A detailed discussion of the basis for the filter cake disposal costs is presented in Section 4.2.

Table 4-4 presents the itemized O&M estimates for the Metals Option 4 sludge filtration
systems. The resulting cost curve is presented as Figure 4-5. The O&M cost equation for the Metals
Option 4 sludge filtration systems is:

In(¥2) = 15.9321 + 1.177In(X) + 0.04697(in(X))* (4-5)
where:

X = Flow Rate (MGD) of Liquid Stream and

Y2 = O&M Cost (1989 $/YR).

Table 4-4. O&M Cost Estimates for Plate and Frame Pressure Filtration - Metals Option 4
(Sludge Stream - Including Filter Cake Disposal Costs)

Flow Taxes Filter Total O&M
Energy Maintenance & Labor Cake Cost
(MGD) Insurance Disposal (1989 $/YR)
0.000001 1,000 404 202 7,800 8 9,414
0.00001 1,000 404 202 7,800 77 9,483
0.0001 1,001 414 209 11,700 7710 14,094
0.001 1,005 632 316 11,700 7,696 21,349
0.01 1,010 1,882 941 15,600 76,960 96,393
0.1 1,104 10,935 5,468 19,500 769,600 806,607
0.5 1,520 55,607 27,804 23,400 3,848,000 3,956,331
1.0 2,040 123,876 61,938 31,200 7,696,000 7,915,054

4-9



Section 4 Sludge Treatment and Disposal Costs _ Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category

Table 4-7 presents the cost estimates for the filter cake disposal. O&M and filter cake disposal
O&M upgrades for Metals Options 2 and 3 systems. Figures 4-7 and 4-8 present the resulting cost
curves. The filter cake disposal O&M cost and O&M upgrade cost equations are presented below
as Equations 4-7 and 4-8, respectively.

Z = 0.109169 + 7,695,499.8(X) (4-7)

Z = 0.101186 + 230,879.8(X) (4-8)
where:

X = Flow Rate (MGD) of Liquid Stream and

Z = Filter Cake Disposal Cost (1989 $/YR).

Table 4-7. Filter Cake Disposal Cost Estimates for Plate and Frame Pressure Filtration Systems -

Metals Options 2 and 3
Wastewater Filter Cake Filter Cake
Influent Flow Disposal Costs Upgrade Disposal Costs
(MGD) ; (1989 $/YR) (1989 $/YR)
0.000001 8 1
0.00001 77 2
0.0001 770 23
0.001 7,696 231
0.01 76,960 2,309
0.05 384,800 11,544
0.10 769,600 23,088
0.50 3,848,000 115,440
1.0 7,696,000 230,880

4-15



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

© & M Cost (1989 S/YR)

4,000 FT
0.0001 0.001 01 on 1
Flow (MGD)

Figure 2-13. O&M Cost Curve for Rapid Mix Tanks - Metals Option 3

O & MCost (1989 $/YR)

1,000 a Bo
0.0001 0,001 0.01
Flow (MGD)

Figure 2-14. O&M Cost Curve for pH Adjustment Tanks - Metals Option 3



LIST OF FIGURES

Total Capital Cost Curve for Selective Metals Precipitation -
Metals Options 2 and 3

Land Requirement Curve for Selective Metals Precipitation -
Metals Options 2 and 3

O&M Cost Curve for Selective Metals Precipitation - Metals Options 2 and3 ....

O&M Upgrade Cost Curve for Selective Metals Precipitation (Raw to Current
Removals) - Metals Options 2 and 3

Total Capital Cost Curve for Secondary Precipitation - Metals Options 2 and 3

Land Requirement Cost Curve for Secondary Precipitation -
Metals Options 2 and 3

O&M Cost Curve for Secondary Precipitation - Metals Options 2 and 3

O&M Upgrade Cost Curve for Secondary Precipitation - Metals Options 2 and 3

Total Capital Cost Curve for Rapid Mix Tanks - Metals Option 3

Total Capital Cost Curve for pH Adjustment Tanks - Metals Option 3

Land Requirement Curve for Rapid Mix Tanks - Metals Option 3

Land Requirement Curve for pH Adjustment Tanks - Metals Option 3

O&M Cost Curve for Rapid Mix Tanks - Metals Option 3

O&M Cost Curve for pH Adjustment Tanks - Metals Option 3

Total Capital Cost Curve for Primary Chemical Precipitation - Metals Option 4

Holding Tank Total Capital Cost Curve for Primary Chemical Precipitation -
Metals Option 4

Land Requirement Curve for Primary Chemical Precipitation -
Metals Option 4

Land Requirement Curve for Holding Tank - Metals Option 4

O&M Cost Curve for Primary Chemical Precipitation - Metals Option 4

O&M Upgrade Cost Curve for Primary Chemical Precipitation - Metals Option 4 -
Primary Treatment In-place

O&M Upgrade Cost Curve for Primary Chemical Precipitation - Metals Option 4 -
Secondary Treatment In-place

Total Capital Cost Curve for Secondary (Sulfide) Precipitation Systems -
Metals Option 4

Land Requirement Curve for Secondary (Sulfide) Precipitation Systems -
Metals Option 4



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

Capital Cost (1989 $)

7 eee

po pi 1 pot iid
0.01 0.4
Flow (MGD)

Figure 2-9. Total Capital Cost Curve for Rapid Mix Tanks - Metals Option 3

Capital Cost (1989 $)

po

0.01 po po el L
0,001 0.01 O41 1
‘ Flow (MGD)

Figure 2-10. Total Capital Cost Curve for pH Adjustment Tanks - Metals Option 3

2-24



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

© &MCost (1989 7YR)

Flow (MGD)

Figure 2-54. O&M Cost Curve for DAF Systems - Flow > 20 gpm

E
g

O & M Cost (1989 S/YR)

10,000
0.01
Flow (MGD)

Figure 2-55. O&M Cost Curve for Modified DAF Systems - Flow > 20 gpm

2-104



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

10,000,000

1,000,000 ee ee
‘100,000 SE
10,000 el

Capital Cost (1989 $)

100 Leh tl
1.00000E-06 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 O41 1 10

Flow (MGD)

Figure 2-1. Total Capital Cost Curve for Selective Metals Precipitation -
Metals Options 2 and 3

. Table 2-2 presents the land requirements for the selective metal precipitation treatment
systems and Figure 2-2 presents the resulting cost curve. The land requirement equation for Metals

Options 2 and 3 selective metals precipitation is:

In(V3) = -0.575 + 0.420In(X) + 0.025(In(X))? : (2-2)
where:

X = Flow Rate (MGD) and

Y3 = Land Requirement (Acres).



Section 1 Costs Development Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category

1.2 Option Costs

EPA developed engineering costs for each of the individual treatment technologies which

comprise the CWT regulatory options. These technology-specific costs are broken down into
capital, O&M, and land components. To estimate the cost of an entire regulatory option, it is
necessary to sum the costs of the individual treatment technologies which make up that option. In
a few instances, an option consists of only one treatment technology; for those cases, the option cost
is obviously equal to the technology cost. The CWT subcategory technology options are shown in
Table 1-3. The treatment technologies included in each option are listed, and the subsections which
contain the corresponding cost information are indicated.

EPA generally calculated the capital and O&M costs for each of the individual treatment
technologies using a flow rate range of 1 gallon per day to five million gallons per day. However,
the flow rate ranges recommended for use in the equations are in a smaller range and are presented
for each cost equation is Sections 11.2 through 11.4 of the Development Document for the CWT

Point Source Category.

Table 1-3. CWT Treatment Technology Costing Index - A Guide to the Costing
Methodology Sections

Subcategory/
Option.

Treatment Technology Section

Selective Metals Precipitation 211
Plate and Frame Liquid Filtration 2.2.1
Secondary Chemical Precipitation 2.1.2
Clarification 2.2.2
Plate and Frame Sludge Filtration 4.1
Filter Cake Disposal 42



2-21.
2-22.

2-23.
2-24.

2-25.

2-26.
2-27.

2-28.

2-29.

2-30.
2-31.

2-32.

2-33.

2-34,
2-35.
2-36.
2-37.

2-38.
2-39.
2-40.
2-41.
2-42.
2-43.

LIST OF TABLES (cont.)

Land Requirement Estimates for Chemical Precipitation - Metals Option4 ...... veceeees 2-35
Lime and Caustic Requirements for Primary Chemical Precipitation Systems - .

Metals Option 4......0.00.0.0c0cccccecececeecucuseevecectetserenerees 2:38
O&M Cost Estimates for Primary Chemical Precipitation - Metals Option 4 ............. 2-39
Lime and Caustic Requirements for Primary Chemical Precipitation Upgrades -

Metals Option 4 - Primary Treatment In-place ..... 2.2.0... 0... cece eee eee 241
Lime and Caustic Requirements for Primary Chemical Precipitation Upgrades -

Metals Option 4 - Secondary Treatment In-place .... 2.2.2... 2... e cece eee eee 2-42
O&M Cost Estimates for Primary Chemical Precipitation TIP - Metals Option 4 ......... 2-44
O&M Upgrade Cost Estimates for Secondary Chemical Precipitation TIP -

Metals Option 4.2.2.0... 0. cece eee cece eee te eee e eee eeneneee 2-44
Total Capital Cost Estimates for Secondary (Sulfide) Precipitation -

Metals Option 4... 20... 6... cece cece ence enc n cence tenet ete n ene ees 2-47
Land Requirement Estimates for Secondary (Sulfide) Precipitation -

Metals Option 4
O&M Cost Estimates for Sulfide Precipitation Systems - Metals Option4 .............. 2-50
Total Capital Cost Estimates for Plate and Frame Pressure Filtration -

Metals Options 2 and 3 - Selective Metals Precipitation ..................2.000- 2-53
O&M Cost Estimates for Plate and Frame Pressure Filtration -

Metals Options 2 and 3 - Selective Metals Precipitation ................-2202-05 2-56

Total Capital Cost Estimates for Clarification Systems -

Metals Options 2,3, and4 .
O&M Cost Estimates for Clarification systems - Metals ss Options 2and4.
O&M Cost Estimates for Clarification Systems - Metals Option3 ...................4-
Design Parameters Used for Equalization in CAPDET Program ................0--200-
Total Capital Cost, O&M Cost, and Land Requirement Estimates

for Equalization Systems .......... 0... c eee e eee cence cence eee eee 2-69
Total Capital Cost Estimates for Air Stripping Systems .................2.0-000-0005 2-72
O&M Cost Estimates for Air Stripping Systems . . 2-75
Total Capital Cost Estimates for Multi-Media Filtration Systems .............-...2.64- 2-77
Land Requirement Estimates for Multi-Media Filtration Systems ................2.05- 2-79

O&M Cost Estimates for Multi-Media Filtration Systems
Total Capital Cost Estimates for Cyanide Destruction at
Special Operating Conditions ... 1.2.2.2... 6.6 cece eee een eee eee 2-83

iii





Section2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

Capital Cost (1989 $)

Flow (MGD)

Figure 2-49. Total Capital Cost Curve for DAF Systems

Capital Cost (1989 $)

40,000 n n
0.01
Flow (MGD)
Figure 2-50. Total Capital Cost Curve for Modified DAF Systems

2-94



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs 5

and assumed that the influent to the plate and frame filtration units would consist of 96 percent liquid
and four percent (40,000 mg/l) solids (based on the model facility).

Table 2-31 presents the itemized capital cost estimates for the plate and frame filtration
systems following selective metals precipitation, while Figure 2-25 presents the resulting cost curve.
The total capital cost equation for Metals Options 2 and 3 plate and frame filtration systems

(following selective metals precipitation) is:

In(V1) = 14.024 + 0.859In(X) + 0.040(n(X))? (2-25)

where:
X = Flow Rate (MGD) and
Y1 = Capital Cost (1989 $).

Table 2-31. Total Capital Cost Estimates for Plate and Frame Pressure Filtration - Metals Options
2 and 3 - Selective Metals Precipitation

Flow Average Installation Total Equipment — Engineering Total
(MGD) Vendor Cost & & Contingency Capital Cost
Equipment Cost Installation Cost Fee (1989 $)
0.000001 9,147 3,201 12,348 3,704 14,607
0.00001 9,147 3,201 12,348 3,704 14,607
0.0001 9,185 3,215 12,400 3,720 14,669
0.0010 * 12,813 4,485 17,298 5,189 20,463
0.0100 30,368 10,629 40,997 12,299 48,499
0.100 122,294 42,803 165,097 49,529 195,310
0.500 443,600 155,260 598,860 179,658 708,451
” 1.000 836,855 292,899 1,129,754 338,926 1,336,499

2-53



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

O&M Cost (1989 $/YR)

pop pitt
01

Flow (MGD)

Figure 2-3. O&M Cost Curve for Selective Metals Precipitation - Metals Options 2 and 3

EPA estimated selective metals precipitation upgrade costs for facilities that currently utilize
some form of chemical precipitation. Based on responses to the Waste Treatment Industry
Questionnaire, EPA assumed that the in-place chemical precipitation systems use a dosage ratio of

25% caustic and 75% lime and achieve a reduction of pollutants from “raw” to “current” levels.

Table 2-5 presents the chemical dosages that EPA estimates facilities currently use to treat their

wastewater from “raw” to “current” levels. The selective metals precipitation upgrade would require
achange in the existing dosage mix to 40% caustic and 60 % lime. Table 2-6 presents the chemical
dosages required for facilities to treat their wastewaters from “raw” to “current” levels using this
dosage mix. Therefore, the selective metals precipitation upgrade for facilities with in-place
chemical precipitation is the increase in caustic cost ( from 25 % to 40%) minus the lime credit (to
decrease from 75% to 60%). Table 2-7 presents the itemized O&M cost estimates for Metals

2-8



Section 4 Sludge Treatment and Disposal Costs _ Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category

In(¥2) = 12.239 + 0.388In(X) + 0.016(In(X))” (4-3)
where:

X = Flow Rate (MGD) of Liquid Stream and

Y2 = O&M Cost (1989 $/YR).

Table 4-2. O&M Cost Estimates for Plate and Frame Pressure Filtration - Metals Options 2 and 3
(Sludge Stream - Excluding Filter Cake Disposal Costs)

Wastewater Taxes O&M
Influent Energy Maintenance & Labor Cost
Flow Insurance (1989 $/YR)
(MGD)
0.000001 1,000 404 202 17,730 19,336
0.00001 1,000 404 202 17,730 19,336
0.0001 1,001 414 207 17,730 19,352
0.001 1,005 632 316 35,457 37,410
0.01 1,010 1,882 941 53,549 57,382
0.10 1,104 10,935 5,468 53,549 71,056
0.50 1,520 55,607 27,804 62,504 147,435
1.0 2,040 123,876 61,938 71,550 259,404

4-5





Section 4 Sludge Treatment and Disposal Costs _ Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category

10,000,000

1,000,000

100,000
. —— ——

410,000 |

Capital Cost (1989 $)

4,000 Looteou 1 vena ne
0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Flow (MGD)

Figure 4-1. Plate and Frame Filtration (Sludge Stream) Total Capital Cost Curve -
All Metals Options

EPA calculated land requirements for the plate and frame pressure filtration systems using
the system dimensions plus a 20-foot perimeter. The land requirement curve is presented as Figure

4-2. The land requirement equation for all Metals Options sludge filtration is the same and is:

In(V3) = -1.971 + 0.281in(X) + 0.018(n(X))? (4-2)

where:
X = Flow Rate (MGD) of Liquid Stream and

Y3 = Land Requirement (Acres).

43



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category

Treatment Technology Costs
° Facilities with no chemical precipitation in-place should use the full capital and O&M costs.
. Facilities with primary chemical precipitation in-place should assume no capital costs, no

land requirements, but an O&M upgrade cost for the primary step.
. Facilities with secondary chemical precipitation currently in-place should assume no capital

costs, no land requirements, and no O&M costs for the secondary step.

Capital and Land Costs

For facilities that have no chemical precipitation in-place, EPA calculated capital cost
estimates for the secondary precipitation treatment systems from vendor quotations.

EPA estimated the other components (i.e., piping, instrumentation and controls, etc.) of the
total capital cost by applying the same factors and additional costs as detailed for selective metals
precipitation (see Section 2.1.1 above).

For the facilities that have at least primary chemical precipitation in-place, EPA assumed that
the capital cost for the secondary precipitation treatment system would be zero. The in-place
primary chemical precipitation systems would serve as secondary precipitation systems after the
installation of upstream selective metals precipitation units. ;

Table 2-8 presents the itemized capital cost estimates for the secondary precipitation
treatment systems in Metals Options 2 and 3 while Figure 2-5 presents the resulting cost curve. The
total capital cost equation for Metals Options 2 and 3 secondary precipitation is:

In (¥1) = 13.829 + 0.544In(X) + 0.00000496(In(X))? (2-5)
where:

X = Flow Rate (MGD) and

Y1 = Capital Cost (1989 $).



Section 5 Additional Costs

Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category

Table 5-4. Unimproved Land Costs for Suburban Areas - Region: South

State

City

0-10
Acres

Land Costs ($/ft?)

10- 100
Acres

Kentucky

Louisville

0.80

0.70

State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)

0.80
34,848

0.70
30,492

Louisiana

New Orleans
Shreveport

2.00
1.00

2.00
0.50

State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)

1.50
65,340

1,25
54,450

Baltimore

3.00

3.00

State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)

3.00
130,680

3.00
130,680

Mississippi

Jackson

0.50

0.20

State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)

0.50
21,780

0.20
8,712 .

North Carolina

Charlotte
Greensboro
Raleigh

0.50
0.90
1.00

0.40
0.75
1.50

State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)

0.80
34,848

0.88
38,478

‘Oklahoma City
Tulsa

0.70
0.50

0.75
0.50

State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)

0.60
26,136

0.63
27,225

South Carolina

Charleston
Columbia

Greenville

0.75
0.70
0.65

0.50
0.40
0.45

State Average Cost
Estimated State Cost/Acre($)

0.70
30,492

0.45
19,602

5-12



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

The cyanide destruction system costed by EPA includes a two-stage reactor with a retention
time of 16 hours, feed system and controls, pumps, piping, and foundation. The two-stage reactor
includes a covered tank, mixer, and containment tank. EPA designed the system based on amenable
and total cyanide influent concentrations of 1,548,000 ug/L and 4,633,710 ug/L, respectively and
effluent concentrations of amenable and total cyanide of 276,106 ug/L and 135,661 ug/L,
respectively. EPA based these influent and effluent concentrations on data collected during EPA’s
sampling of cyanide destruction systems.

Because the system used by the facility which forms the basis of the proposed cyanide
limitation and standards uses special operation conditions, EPA assigned full capital and O&M costs
to all facilities which perform cyanide destruction.

Capital and Land Costs
EPA obtained the capital costs curves for cyanide destruction systems with special operating

conditions from vendor services. Table 2-43 presents the itemized total capital cost estimates for

the cyanide destruction systems. Figure 2-43 presents the resulting cost curve. The total capital cost

equation for cyanide destruction systems is:

In(V1) = 13.977 + 0.546In(X) + 0.0033(In(X))”
where:

X = Batch Size (MGD) and

Y1 = Capital Cost (1989 $).



Section 4 Sludge Treatment and Disposal Costs _ Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category

Capital and Land Costs

EPA developed the capital cost equation for plate and frame sludge filtration by adding installation,
engineering, and contingency costs to vendors' equipment cost estimates. EPA used the same capital cost
equation for the plate and frame sludge filtration system for all of the Metals Options.

Table 4-1 presents the itemized total capital cost estimates for the plate and frame sludge

filtration systems for all the Metals Options. The resulting cost curve is presented as Figure 4-1.
The sludge filtration total capital cost equation for all the Metals Options is:

In(¥1) = 14.827 + 1.087In(X) + 0.0050(In(X))?
where:

X = Flow (MGD) of Liquid Stream and

Y1 = Capital Cost (1989 $).

Table 4-1. Total Capital Cost Estimates for Plate and Frame Pressure Filtration (Sludge Stream)

Wastewater Average Total Capital Engineering Total
Influent Vendor Install. & & Capital Cost
Flow Equipment Cost Installation Cost Contingency (1989 $)

(MGD) Cost Fee
0.000001 6,325 2,214 8,539 2,562 10,102
0.00001 6,325 2,214 8,539 2,562 10,102
0.0001 6,482 2,269 8,751 2,625 10,352
0.001 9,897 3,464 13,361 4,008 15,806
0.01 29,474 10,316 39,790 11,937 47,072
0.05 93,960 32,886 126,846 38,054 150,059
0.10 171,183 59,914 231,097 69,329 273,388
0.50 870,475 304,666 1,175,141 352,542 1,390,192
1.00 1,939,145 678,701 2,617,846 785,354 3,096,912



Section 2. Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

metal catalysts have a lifetime of approximately four years. EPA divided the costs for replacing
the spent catalysts by four to convert them to annual costs. As is the standard used by EPA for this
industry, taxes and insurance were estimated at 2 percent of the total capital cost.

Table 2-39 presents the itemized O&M cost estimates for the air stripping systems. Figure
2-39 presents the resulting cost curve. The O&M cost equation for the air stripping system is:

In(¥2) = 10.865 + 0.298In(X) + 0.021(In(X))” (2-41)
where:

X = Flow Rate (MGD) and

Y2= O&M Cost (1989 $/YR).

Table 2-39. O&M Cost Estimates for Air Stripping Systems

Taxes Catalyst Total Total
Flow . & Replacement O&M Cost O&M Cost
(Gp) Energy Maintenance surance Labor Cost (1992 $/YR) (1989 S/YR)
0.0001 1,050 1,928 964 16,425 33 20,400 19,176
0.001 1,575 2,030 1,015 16,425 50 21,095 19,829
0.01 2,100 2,592 1,296, 16,425 102 22,515 21,164
0.1 5,250 4,347 2,174 16,425 500 28,696 26,974
0.5 11,812 9,000 4,500 16,425 1,500 43,237 40,643
1.0 21,000 12,720 6,360 16,425 4,250 60,755 57,110

2-75



DETAILED COSTING DOCUMENT FOR THE CWT POINT SOURCE CATEGORY

In this document, EPA presents the costs estimated for compliance with the proposed CWT
effluent limitations guidelines and standards. Section 1 provides a general description of how the
individual treatment technology and regulatory option costs were developed. In Sections 2 through
4, EPA describes the development of costs for each of the wastewater and sludge treatment
technologies.

In Section 5, EPA presents additional compliance costs to be incurred by facilities, which

-—-are not technology specific. These additional items are retrofit costs, monitoring costs, RCRA

permit modification costs, and land costs.

SECTIONi Costs DEVELOPMENT
11 Technology Costs

EPA obtained cost information for the technologies selected from the following sources:
: the data base developed from the 1991 Waste Treatment Industry (WTI) Questionnaire
responses (This contained some process cost information, and was used wherever possible.),
. technical information developed for EPA rulemaking efforts such as the guidelines and
standards for: the Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) category,
Metal Products and Machinery (MP&M) category, and Industrial Laundries industries

category,
. engineering literature,
° the CWT sampling/model facilities, and
° vendors' quotations (used extensively in estimating the cost of the various technologies).

The total costs developed by EPA include the capital costs of investment, annual O&M costs,
land requirement costs, sludge disposal costs, monitoring costs, RCRA permit modification costs,
and retrofit costs. Because 1989 is the base year for the WTI Questionnaire, EPA scaled all of the

1-1



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

1,000,000

100,000

O & MCost (1989 $/YR)

40,000 eet a ee | pod a
0.001 0.01 of 4 10
Flow (MGD)

Figure 2-42. O&M Cost Curve for Multi-Media Filtration Systems

2.6 Cyanide Destruction

Many CWTs achieved required cyanide destruction by oxidation. These facilities primarily
use chlorine (in either the elemental or hypochlorite form) as the oxidizing agent in this process.
Oxidation of cyanide with chlorine is called alkaline chlorination.

The oxidation of cyanide waste using sodium hypochlorite is a two step process. In the first
step, cyanide is oxidized to cyanate in the presence of hypochlorite, and sodium hydroxide is used
to maintain a pH range of 9 to 11. The second step oxidizes cyanate to carbon dioxide and nitrogen
at a controlled pH of 8.5. The amounts of sodium hypochlorite and sodium hydroxide needed to
perform the oxidation are 8.5 parts and 8.0 parts per part of cyanide, respectively. At these levels,
the total reduction occurs at a retention time of 16 to 20 hours. The application of heat can facilitate

the more complete destruction of total cyanide.

2-81



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

Table 2-44. O&M Cost Estimates for Cyanide Destruction at Special Operating Conditions

Flow Sodium Sodium Taxes Total
Rate Energy Hypochlorite Hydroxide Labor Maint. & O&M Cost
(MGD) Cost Cost Ins. (1989 $/YR)

0.00001 1,000 50 25 16,425 AT 24 15,990
0.00001 1,000 482 225 16,425 86 16,735
0.0001 1,000 4,826 2,256 16,425 22,937
0.001 1,100 48,260 22,568 16,425 82,049
0.01 1,600 482,470 225,680 16,425 666,124
0.05 1,730 2,412,345 1,128,400 16,425 3,250,867
0.10 7,000 4,824,700 2,256,800 16,425 6,484,043
0.50 31,200 = 24,123,450 11,284,000 16,425 32,310,519
1.0 70,000 48,246,900 22,568,000 16,425 64,584,953

O & MCost (1989 $/YR)

40,000 Pee ee eT eT a
0.00001 0.0001 0,001 0.01 O41 1 10
Flow (MGD)

Figure 2-45. O&M Cost Curve for CN Destruction Systems at Special Operating Conditions



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

Tables 2-57 and 2-58 present the itemized O&M Cost estimates for the DAF and modified
DAF systems with flow rates of up to 20 gpm. Figures 2-56 and 2-57 present the resulting cost

curves.

The O&M cost equations for the DAF and modified DAF systems with flow rates up to 20

gpm are presented below as Equations 2-58 and 2-59, respectively.

In (2) = 21.2446 + 4.14823In(X) + 0.36585(In(X))?

In (¥2) = 21.2005 + 4.07449In(X) + 0.34557(In(X))*
where:

X = Flow Rate (MGD) and

Y2 = O&M Cost (1989 $/YR).

Table 2-55. O&M Cost Estimates for DAF Systems - Flow > 20 gpm

Chemical Cost Total
(uigo) Mainten- T&%S% Energy Labor O&M Cost
ance . Alum NaOH Polymer Perlite (1989 $/YR)

0.036 4,771 2,386 2,920 15,600 4,090 12,449 46,650 8,338 97,204
0.072 8,155 4,077 2,920 19,500 8,181 24,898 93,300 16,675 177,706
0.144 17,788 8,894 3,569 23,400 16,361 49,795 186,601 33,350 339,758

49,890 24,945 8,760 31,200 163,613 497,952 1,866,010 333,520 2,975,890



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category

Treatment Technology Costs
1.00
ir
2
S
<
=
6
& 0.10
3
zs =
<4
I
2
5
4s
0.01 po po it pop pi po ti
0.001 0.01 O14 1 10

Flow (MGD)

Figure 2-23. Land Requirement Curve for Secondary (Sulfide) Precipitation Systems -
Metals Option 4

Labor and Chemical Costs

For facilities with no secondary precipitation systems in-place, EPA estimated the labor
requirements at two hours per batch, one batch per day. EPA based this estimate on standard
operation at the Metals Option 4 model facility.

For secondary sulfide precipitation in Metals Option 4, EPA did not base the chemical cost
estimates on stoichiometric requirements. Instead, EPA estimated the chemical costs based on
dosage rates for the addition of polymer and ferrous sulfide, obtained during the sampling of the
Metals Option 4 model plant with BAT performance. Polymer was added at a rate of 0.0024 gallons
per gallon of wastewater. The polymer used was the ARIES TEK LTD cationic polymer 3196 used
at a rate of 16 oz of polymer per 100 gallons of water. The pricing according to the manufacturer
is $1.67/b. The ferrous sulfide slurry was added at a rate of 0.0012 gallons per gallon of
wastewater. The ferrous sulfide slurry was prepared using 100 Ibs of ferrous sulfate, 15 lbs of

2-49



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category

Treatment Technology Costs
1.00
eg
5
<
=e
2 0.10
2
3
Fy
3
[4
2
z
5
s
0.01 pop
0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 on 1 10

Flow (MGD)

Figure 2-26. Plate and Frame Filtration (Liquid Stream) Land Requirement Curve for
Selective Metals Precipitation - Metals Options 2 and 3

Chemical Usage and Labor Requirements

EPA estimated that labor requirements for plate and frame liquid filtration for Metals Options
2 and 3 would be 30 minutes per batch per filter press (based on the Metals Options 2 and 3 model
facility). There are no chemicals associated with the operation of the plate and frame filtration
systems. The itemized O&M cost estimates for the Metals Options 2 and 3 plate and frame filtration
systems are presented in Table 2-32. The resulting cost curve is presented as Figure 2-27. The
O&M equation for the Metals Options 2 and 3 selective metals precipitation plate and frame

filtration systems is:

In(¥2) = 13.056 + 0.193in(X) + 0.00343(n(X))? (2-27)
where:

X = Flow Rate (MGD) and

Y2 = O&M Cost (1989 $/YR).

2-55



Section 1 Costs Development Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category

1.2.1 Land Requirements and Costs -

EPA calculated land requirements for each piece of new equipment based on the equipment
dimensions. The land requirements include the total area needed for the equipment plus peripherals
(pumps, controls, access areas, etc.). Additionally, EPA included a 20-foot perimeter around each
unit. In the cases where adjacent tanks or pieces of equipment were required, EPA used a 20-foot
perimeter for each piece of equipment, and configured the geometry to give the minimum area
requirements possible. The land requirement equations for each technology are presented throughout
Sections 2 to 4. EPA then multiplied the land requirements by the corresponding land costs (as
detailed in 5.4) to obtain facility specific land cost estimates.

1.2.2. Operation and Maintenance Costs

EPA based O&M costs on estimated energy usage, maintenance, labor, taxes and insurance,
and chemical usage cost. With the principal exception of chemical usage and labor costs, EPA
calculated the O&M costs using a single methodology. This methodology is relatively consistent
for each treatment technology, unless specifically noted otherwise.

EPA’s energy usage costs include electricity, lighting, and controls. EPA estimated
electricity requirements at 0.5 kWhr per 1,000 gallons of wastewater treated. EPA assumed lighting
and controls to cost $1,000 per year and electricity cost $0.08 per kWhr. Manufacturers’
recommendations form the basis of these estimates.

EPA based maintenance, taxes, and insurance on a percentage of the total capital cost as

detailed in Table 1-2.

Chemical usage and labor requirements are technology specific. These costs are detailed for

each specific technology according to the index given in Table 1-3.



Section 5 Additional Costs Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category

Table 5-3. RCRA Permit Modification Costs Reported in WTI Questionnaires

Modification QID Year Total Cost Total Cost
(reported $) (1989 $)

New Units 081 1990 26,000 25,357

; 255 1990 7,000 6,827

New Technology 081 1990 82,000 79,793
090 1990 6,300,000* 6,144,231*

Modify Existing 402 1991 14,080 13,440
Equipment

Average - - - 31,400

* This cost includes equipment and installation costs; no cost breakdown is given. Therefore, this data was not used
in calculating the average cost.

5.4 Land Costs

An important factor in the calculation of treatment technology costs is the value of the land
needed for the installation of the technology. To determine the amount of land required for costing
purposes, EPA calculated the land requirements for each treatment technology for the range of
system sizes. EPA fit these land requirements to a curve and calculated land requirements, in acres,
for every treatment system costed. EPA then multiplied the individual land requirements by the
corresponding state land cost estimates to obtain facility-specific cost estimates.

EPA used different land cost estimates for each state rather than a single nationwide average
since land costs may vary widely across the country. To estimate land costs for each state, EPA
obtained average land costs for suburban sites for each state from the 1990 Guide to Industrial and
Real Estate Office Markets survey. EPA based these land costs on “unimproved sites” since,

according to the survey, they are the most desirable. Table 5-4 presents the estimated unit land

prices for the unimproved suburban sites of major cities and the averages for each state and region.



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater

Treatment Technology Costs

Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category

Table 2-43. Total Capital Cost Estimates for Cyanide Destruction at Special Operating Conditions

Volume Instrument. Total Total Total
per Day System Installation Piping & Construction Capital Capital
(MGD) Cost Controls Cost Cost Cost
(1993 $) (1989 $)
0.000001 500 175 155 65 895 1,164 1,059
0.00001 1,850 648 574 241 3,313 4,307 3,919
0.0001 5,000 1,750 1,550 650 8,950 11,635 10,588
0.001 14,252 4,988 4,418 1,853 25,511 33,164 30,179
0.01 45,875 16,056 14,221 5,964 82,116 106,751 97,143
0.05 106,105 37,137 32,893 13,794 189,929 246,908 224,686
0.10 160,542 56,190 49,768 20,870 287,370 373,581 339,959
0.50 401,320 140,462 124,409 52,172 718,363 933,872 849,824
1.0 560,000 196,000 173,600 72,800 1,002,400 1,303,120 1,185,839
10,000,000 —
900,000 EY
2
3
z 400,000 ——
3
a
3)
10,000
4,000 Peete ee oe eT a eT TT
0.00001 0.0001 0.001 oot O41 1 40
Flow (MGD)
Figure 2-43. Total Capital Cost Curve for CN Destruction Systems at Special Operating

Conditions



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

Chemical Usage and Labor Requirement Costs

EPA based the labor requirements for selective metals precipitation on the model facility’s
operation. EPA estimated the labor cost at eight man-hours per batch (four treatment tanks per
batch, two hours per treatment tank per batch).

EPA estimated selective metals precipitation chemical costs based on stoichiometric, pH
adjustment, and buffer adjustment requirements. For facilities with no form of chemical
precipitation in-place, EPA based the stoichiometric requirements on the amount of chemicals
required to precipitate each of the metal and semi-metal pollutants of concern from the metals
subcategory average raw influent concentrations to current performance levels (See Chapter 12 of
the Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category for a discussion of raw influent
concentrations and current loadings). The chemicals used were caustic at 40 percent of the required
removals and lime at 60 percent of the required removals. (Caustic at 40 percent and lime at 60
percent add up to 100 percent of the stoichiometric requirements.) These chemical dosages reflect
the operation of the selective metals precipitation model facility. Selective metals precipitation uses
a relatively high percentage of caustic because the sludge resulting from caustic precipitation is
amenable to metals recovery.. EPA estimated the pH adjustment and buffer adjustment requirements
to be 40 percent of the stoichiometric requirement. EPA added an excess of 10 percent to the pH
and buffer adjustment requirements, bringing the total to 50 percent. EPA included a 10 percent
excess because this is typical of the operation of the CWT facilities visited and sampled by EPA.

Table 2-3 presents the lime and caustic requirements for the selective metals precipitation
for facilities with no treatment in-place. Table 2-4 presents the itemized O&M cost estimates for
these facilities. Figure 2-3 presents the resulting cost curve. The O&M cost equation for the Metals

Options 2 and 3 selective metals precipitation for facilities with no treatment in-place is:



Section2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

Capital Cost (1989 $)

1 a oe
0.001

Flow (MGD)
Figure 2-16. Holding Tank Total Capital Cost Curve for Primary Chemical Precipitation -
Metals Option 4

The land requirements for the Metals Option 4 primary chemical precipitation and holding

tank systems are presented in Table 2-21. The resulting cost curves are presented as Figures 2-17

and 2-18, respectively. The land requirement equations for the Metals Option 4 primary chemical

precipitation and holding tank systems are presented below as Equations 2-17 and 2-18, respectively.

In(¥3) = -1.019 + 0.299In(X) + 0.015(In(X))? (2-17)

In(W3) = -2.866 - 0.023In(X) - 0.006(n(X))* (2-18)
where:

X = Flow Rate (MGD) and

Y3 = Land Requirement (Acres).



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

Table 2-41. Land Requirement Estimates for Multi-Media Filtration Systems

Flow Rate
Land Requirement (Acres)
(MGD)

0.01 0.0485

0.05 0.0500

0.50 0.0602

10° 0.0716

1.00
g
&
3
€ 0.10
g
S
2
z
4s
001 Fear TT YT
0.0001 0.001 0.01 01 1 10
Flow (MGD)
Figure 2-41. Land Requirement Curve for Multi-Media Filtration Systems
2-79



Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

Table 2-10 presents the lime requirements for the secondary chemical precipitation step of
Metals Options 2 and 3. Table 2-11 presents the itemized annual O&M estimates for the secondary
chemical precipitation units. Figure 2-7 presents the resulting cost curve. The O&M cost equation

for Metals Options 2 and 3 secondary chemical precipitation is:

In(¥2) = 11.6553 + 0.48348In(X) + 0.02485(In(X))” (2-7)
where:

X = Flow Rate (MGD) and

Y2 = O&M Cost (1989 $/YR).

4,000,000
8 e000
3
3
40,000 be iit po pitt ee eT oe ee a eT
0.0001 0.001 001 04 1 10

Flow (MGD)
Figure 2-7. O&M Cost Curve for Secondary Precipitation - Metals Options 2 and 3

2-17



Section 5 Additional Costs Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category

Table 5-4. Unimproved Land Costs for Suburban Areas - Region: West
State City Land Costs ($/ft?)

0-10 10- 100 >100
Acres Acres Acres

* # *

Phoenix 2.25 1.50 0.75
Tucson 1.00 0.60 0.25
State Average Cost 1.63 1.05 0.50
Estimated State Cost/Acre($) 70,785 . 45,738 21,780
California Contra Costa 3.00 1.50 -
Orange County 12.00 11.00 -
San Fernando Valley 7.00 6.00 5.00
San Gabriel Valley 7.50 4.50 -
South Bay 18.00 18.00 18.00
Marin & Sonoma Counties 4.00 2.50 -
San Diego 6.00 6.00 5.00
Stockton 1.20 0.60 0.50
State Average Cost 7.34 6.26 7.13
Estimated State Cost/Acre($) 319,622 272,795 310,365
Denver 1.25 1.00 0.75
State Average Cost 1.25 1.00 0.75
Estimated State Cost/Acre($) 54,450 43,560 32,670
Hawaii** Honolulu 30.00 20.00 -
State Average Cost 30.00 20.00 -
Estimated State Cost/Acre($) 1,306,800 871,200 -



Section3 Biological Wastewater Treatment Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Technology Costs

Section 3 Biological Wastewater Treatment Technology Costs

3.1 Sequencing Batch Reactors

A sequencing batch reactor (SBR) is a suspended growth system in which wastewater is
mixed with existing biological floc in an aeration basin. SBR's are unique in that a single tank acts
as an equalization tank, an aeration tank, and a clarifier.

The SBR system costed by EPA for the model technology consists of a SBR tank, sludge
handling equipment, feed system and controls, pumps, piping, blowers, and valves. The design
parameters that EPA used for the SBR system were the average influent and effluent BOD,,
ammonia, and nitrate-nitrite concentrations. The average influent concentrations were 4800 mg/L,
995 mg/L, and 46 mg/L for BOD,, ammonia, and nitrate-nitrite, respectively. The average effluent
BOD,, ammonia, and nitrate-nitrite concentrations used were 1,600 mg/l, 615 mg/l, and 1.0 mg/l,
respectively. EPA obtained these concentrations from the sampling data at the SBR model facility.

EPA assumed that all existing biological treatment systems in-place at organics subcategory
facilities can meet the limitations of this proposal without incurring cost. This includes facilities
which utilize any form of biological treatment -- not just SBRs. Therefore, the costs presented here
only apply to facilities without biological treatment in-place. EPA did not develop SBR upgrade
costs for either capital or O&M.

Capital and Land Costs

EPA estimated the capital costs for the SBR systems using vendor quotes which include
installation costs. Table 3-1 presents the itemized total capital cost estimates for the SBR systems.
The resulting cost curve is presented as Figure 3-1. The SBR total capital cost equation is:

i)
7
ms



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

SECTION2. PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY Costs

2.1 Chemical Precipitation

Wastewater treatment facilities widely use chemical precipitation systems to remove
dissolved metals from wastewater. EPA evaluated systems that utilize sulfide, lime, and caustic as
the precipitants because of their common use in CWT chemical precipitation systems and their

effectiveness in removing dissolved metals.

2.1.1 Selective Metals Precipitation - Metals Option 2 and Metals Option 3

The selective metals precipitation equipment assumed by EPA for costing purposes for
Metals Option 2 and Metals Option 3 consists of four mixed reaction tanks, each sized for 25 percent
of the total daily flow, with pumps and treatment chemical feed systems. EPA costed for four
reaction tanks to allow a facility to segregate its wastes into small batches, thereby facilitating metals
recovery and avoiding interference with other incoming waste receipts. EPA assumed that these
four tanks would provide adequate surge and equalization capacity for a metals subcategory CWT.
EPA based costs on a four batch per day treatment schedule (that is, the sum of four batch volumes
equals the facility's daily incoming waste volume).

As shown in Table 1-3, plate and frame liquid filtration follows selective metals precipitation
for Metals Options 2 and 3. EPA has not presented the costing discussion for plate and frame liquid
filtration in this section (consult Section 2.2.1). Likewise, EPA has presented the discussion for
sludge filtration and filter cake disposal in Sections 4.1 and 4.2, respectively.

Capital and Land Costs
EPA obtained the equipment capital cost estimates for the selective metals precipitation
systems from vendor quotations. These costs include the cost of the mixed reaction tanks with

_ pumps and treatment chemical feed systems. Because only one facility in the metals subcategory

2-1



Section 2  Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category

Treatment Technology Costs

1,000,000
z
> 100,000
é
2
S
2
3B
3
iS)
=
= 10,000
fo}

4,000 pod po sp pt Lo ii
0.001 0.01 01 1 10

Flow (MGD)

Figure 2-20. O&M Upgrade Cost Curve for Primary Chemical Precipitation -
Metals Option 4 - Primary Treatment In-place

4,000,000
€
3 100,000
eo .
3S
2
7
3
°
= 10,000
S " —
fo)
0.001 0.01 ot 1 10
Flow (MGD)

’ Figure 2-21. O&M Upgrade Cost Curve for Primary Chemical Precipitation -
Metals Option 4 - Secondary Treatment In-place

2-45



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

© &M Cost (1989 $/YR)
3
8

1 1 ao
0,010
Flow (MGD)

Figure 2-62. O&M Upgrade Cost Curve for DAF Systems - Flow < 20 gpm

1,000,000

O & MCost (1989 $/YR)

10,000 aot
0.01

Flow (MGD)
Figure 2-63. O&M Upgrade Cost Curve for DAF Systems - Flow > 20 gpm

2-114



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

Land Requirement (Acres)

1

Flow (MGD)

Figure. 2-52. Land Requirement Curve for DAF and Modified DAF Systems

EPA also estimated land requirements for the holding tanks. Table 2-53 presents the land

requirements for the holding tank systems. The resulting cost curve is presented as Figure 2-53. The

land requirement cost equation for the holding tank systems is:

In (¥3) = -1.5772 + 0.35955In(X) + 0.020130n(X))”
where:

X = Flow Rate (MGD) and

Y3 = Land Requirement (Acres)



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

Chemical Usage And Labor Requirement Costs

EPA estimated the labor requirements associated with the model technology at four hours
per day for the small systems to eight hours per day for the large systems, which is based on the
average of the Oils Options 8 and 9 model facilities. EPA used the same labor estimate for DAF and
“modified” DAF systems.

As discussed in the capital cost section, EPA has assumed that facilities with flow rates

below 20 gpm will not operate the DAF daily. Therefore, for these lower flow rate facilities, EPA
only included labor to operate the DAF (or “modified” DAF) systems for the days the system will
be operational. Table 2-54 lists the number of days per week EPA assumed these lower flow

facilities would operate their DAF systems..

Table 2-54. Labor Requirement Estimates for DAF Systems
Flow Rate Labor Requirements

(GPM) (days/week)

<5 1

5-10 2
10-15 3
15-20 4

>20 5

As detailed earlier, however, EPA also assumed that facilities with flow rates below 20 gpm,
would also operate a holding tank. Therefore, for facilities with flow rates below 20 gallons per
minute, EPA included additional labor to operate the holding tank.

EPA calculated chemical cost estimates for DAF and “modified” DAF systems based on
additions of aluminum sulfate, caustic soda, and polymer. EPA costed for facilities to add 550 mg/L
alum, 335 mg/L polymer and 1680 mg/L of NaOH. EPA also included costs for perlite addition at
0.25 Ibs per Ib of dry solids for sludge conditioning and sludge dewatering operations (for both the
DAF and “modified” DAF systems). EPA based the chemical additions on information gathered

2-100



LisT OF TABLES (cont.)

O&M Cost Estimates for Cyanide Destruction at Special Operating Conditions

Total Capital Cost Estimates for Secondary Gravity Separation

Land Requirement Estimates for Secondary Gravity Separation . .

O&M Cost Estimates for Secondary Gravity Separation

Total Capital Cost Estimates for DAF Systems

Total Capital Cost Estimates for Modified DAF Systems

Holding Tank Capacity Estimates for DAF Systems

Total Capital Cost Estimates for Holding Tank Systems

Land Requirement Estimates for DAF and Modified DAF Systems

Land Requirement Estimates for Holding Tank Systems

Labor Requirement Estimates for DAF Systems

O&M Cost Estimates for DAF Systems - Flow > 20 gpm

O&M Cost Estimates for Modified DAF Systems - Flow > 20 gpm .

O&M Cost Estimates for DAF Systems - Flow < 20 gpm

O&M Cost Estimates for Modified DAF Systems - Flow < 20 gpm

O&M Cost Estimates for DAF Systems, Group 5 Facilities - Flow > 20 gpm

O&M Cost Estimates for Modified DAF Systems, Group 5 Facilities -
Flow > 20 gpm

O&M Cost Estimates for DAF Systems, Group 5 Facilities - Flow < 20 gpm

O&M Cost Estimates for Modified DAF Systems, Group 5 Facilities -
Flow < 20 gpm

O&M Upgrade Cost Estimates for DAF Systems - Flow < 20 gpm

O&M Upgrade Cost Estimates for DAF Systems - Flow > 20 gpm

O&M Upgrade Cost Estimates for DAF Systems, Group 5 Facilities -
Flow < 20 gpm

O&M Upgrade Cost Estimates for DAF System, Group 5 Facilities -
Flow > 20 gpm

Total Capital Cost Estimates for Sequencing Batch Reactor Systems

O&M Cost Estimates for Sequencing Batch Reactor Systems

Total Capital Cost Estimates for Plate and Frame Pressure
Filtration (Sludge Stream)

O&M Cost Estimates for Plate and Frame Pressure Filtration - Metals Options
2 and 3 (Sludge Stream - Excluding Filter Cake Disposal Costs)



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs .

with multi-media filtration. EPA assumed that the multi-media filter currently in-place at CWT
facilities would perform as well as (or better than) the system costed by EPA.

Capital and Land Costs

EPA based the capital costs of multi-media filters on vendor’s recommendations. Table 2-40
presents the itemized total capital cost estimates for the multi-media filtration systems. The resulting
cost curve is presented as Figure 2-40. The total capital cost equation for the multi-media filtration

system is:

In(V1) = 12.0126 + 0.48025In(X) + 0.04623(In(X))* (2-42)
where:

X = Flow Rate (MGD) and

Y1 = Capital Cost (1989 $).

Table 2-40. Total Capital Cost Estimates for Multi-Media Filtration Systems

. ee Total Total
Flow Rate System 4. atten _ Instrument. Engineering Capital Capital
installation Piping & &
(McD) Cost Controls Contingenc’ Cost Cost
gency (19978) (1989S)
0.01 23,500 8,225 7,050. 7,050 13,748 59,573 47,198
0.05 31,000 10,850 9,300 9,300 18,135 78,585 62,261
0.50 55,000 19,250 16,500 16,500 32,175 139,425 110,463
- 1.0 87,000 ° 30,450 26,100 26,100 50,895 220,545 174,732

2-77



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

Capital and Land Costs

EPA developed the capital cost estimates for the rapid mix tank assuming continuous flow
and a 15-minute detention time, which is based on the model facility’s standard operation. The
equipment cost includes one tank, one agitator, and one lime feed system.

EPA developed the capital cost estimates for the pH adjustment tank assuming continuous
flow and a five-minute detention time, also based on the model facility’s operation. The equipment
cost includes one tank, one agitator, and one sulfuric acid feed system.

EPA estimated the other components (i.e., piping, instrumentation and controls, etc.) of the
total capital cost for both the rapid mix and pH adjustment tank by applying the same factors and
additional costs as detailed for selective metals precipitation (see Section 2.1.1 above).

The itemized capital cost estimates for the rapid mix and pH adjustment tank are presented
in Tables 2-13 and 2-14, respectively. The resulting cost curves are presented as Figures 2-9 and 2-
10. The total capital cost equations calculated for the rapid mix and pH adjustment tanks are

presented below as Equations 2-9 and 2-10, respectively.

In(V1) = 12.318 + 0.543In(X) - 0.000179(In(X))?
In(V1) = 11.721 + 0.543In(X) + 0.000139(In(X))?

where:
X= Flow Rate (MGD) and
Y1 = Capital Cost (1989 $).



Section 5 Additional Costs Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category

The monitoring cost (based on frequency and analytical methods) are incremental to the
monitoring currently being incurred by the CWT Industry. EPA applied credit to facilities for
current monitoring-in-place (MIP). For facilities where actual monitoring frequencies are
unknown, EPA estimated monitoring frequencies based on other subcategory facilities with
known monitoring frequencies.

The cost of the analyses needed to determine compliance for the CWT pollutants are shown

below in Table 5-2. EPA obtained these costs from actual quotes given by vendors and converted

to 1989 dollars using the ENR’s Construction Cost Index.

Table 5-2. Analytical Cost Estimates

Analyses Cost ($1989)
BOD, $20
TSS $10
O&G $32
Cr+6 $20
Total CN $30

Metals: $335
Total (27 Metals) $335
Per Metal! $35

Volatile Organics (method 1624)” $285
Semi-volatile Organics (method 1625)? $615

‘For 10 or more metals, use the full metals analysis cost of $335.

2 There is no incremental cost per compound for methods 1624 and 1625 (although
there may be a slight savings if the entire scan does not have to be reported). Use
the full method cost, regardless of the actual number of constituent parameters
required.



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category

Treatment Technology Costs

10,000,000
@ 1,000,000
=
&
8
2
3
é
=
<% —_ 100,000
°

40,000 po po po
0.01 04 4 10
Flow (MGD)
Figure 2-59. O&M Cost Curve for Group 5 Modified DAF Systems -
Flow > 20 gpm.
100,000
L
7

&

5 VA

g

g

=

o

°

40,000 1 ar ee . fe oe er
0.001 0.010 0.100
Flow (MGD)

Figure 2-60. O&M Cost Curve for Group 5 DAF Systems - Flow < 20 gpm

2-109



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

To develop land requirements for the cyanide destruction systems, EPA used the vendor data.
The dimensions were scaled up to represent the total land required for the package unit plus
peripherals (pumps, controls, access areas, etc.). Figure 2-44 presents the land requirement curve
for the cyanide destruction system. The equation relating the flow of the cyanide destruction system

with the land requirements is:

In(¥3) = -1.168 + 0.419In(X) + 0.021 (n(X))*

where:
X = Flow Rate (MGD) and
Y3 = Land Requirement (Acres).

Land Requirement (Acres)

0.01 pop POE ae

0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 O41 4
Flow (MGD)

Figure 2-44. Land Requirement Curve for CN Destruction Systems at Special Operating
Conditions



Section 2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Detailed Costing Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatment Technology Costs

The land requirements for the rapid mix and pH adjustment tanks are presented in Table 2-
15. The resulting cost curves are presented as Figures 2-11 and 2-12, respectively. The land
requirement equations for the rapid mix tank and pH adjustment tank are presented below as

Equations 2-11 and 2-12, respectively.

In(¥3) = -2.330 + 0.352In(X) + 0.019(in(X))? (2-11)

In(V3) = -2.67 + 0.30In(X) + 0.033(In(X))? (2-12)
where: ‘

X = Flow Rate (MGD) and

Y3 = Land Requirement (Acres).

Table 2-15. Land Requirement Estimates for Tertiary Precipitation Tanks - Metals Option,3

Rapid Mix Tank pH Adjustment Tank
Flow Land Requirements Land Requirements
(MGD) (Acres) (Acres)

0.01 0.036 0.037
0.05 0.044 0.037

0.1 0.05 0.04

0.5 0.078 0.06

1.0 0.098 0.07

5.0 : 0.184 0.12

2-25